History of the Armenians 0674395719

Citation preview

History of the Armenians Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 4

Moses Khorenats‘i

History of the Armenians Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources by

Robert W. Thomson

Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 1978

Copyright © 1978 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Moses, of Chorene, 407?֊492? History of the Armenians.

(Harvard Armenian texts and studies; 4) Translation of Patmowt‘iwn Hayots‘. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Armenia—History—To 428. 2. Armenia— Description and travel. I. Thomson, Robert W., 1934II. Title. III. Series. DS181.M72J3 956.6'2 77-22724 ISBN 0-674-39571-9

Uxori dilectae

Preface

HE field of historical writing is well represented in Armenian literature, but only a few works have attained the status of classics in the sense that they have shaped the way in which later generations of Armenians came to view their na­ tional past. Of these few none has been so influential as the History of Moses Khorenats‘i, for this book is both a repository of ancient legend and tradition concerning the origins of the Armenian people, much of it unattested elsewhere, and an inter­ pretation of the rise and fall of the Armenian kingdom from the time of Alexander the Great to the early fifth century a.d. A serious drawback to the study and appreciation of this History is that it has never before been translated into English, and no translation has been made from the critical edition (pub­ lished in Tiflis in 1913) into any Western language. One of the purposes of this work is to present the first English translation from the Armenian critical text for all those interested in Armen­ ian literature who do not have a command of the classical tongue. The Armenian text itself is available through University Micro­ films (Ann Arbor, Michigan). But a straightforward translation by itself would not en­ lighten the general reader as to the problems that this History poses. There are problems of a literary nature that I discuss in my commentary and introduction: Where does Moses follow other writers, Armenian or foreign; what changes has he introduced into his own account of events; what parts of his narrative are otherwise uncorroborated? What are Moses’ methods; how does he use his sources; how reliable or tendentious is he? Only when

vii

Preface such questions have been answered can Moses’ History be read in a discerning fashion. I have made no attempt to write the history of Armenia or to answer all the historical questions that arise from a reading of this difficult, and often deliberately obscure, text. I have merely tried to clarify a source that must puzzle every student of things Armenian. Naturally, I have drawn deeply and widely on previous scholarship, but I have not attempted to give a detailed account of the last century of “Moses-kritik.” Rather I have made an effort to indicate points of view expressed in Armenian books and articles that are not accessible to most English-speaking readers. My hope is that scholars with more strictly historical interests than my own may now have a better guide than was previously available to this fundamental Ar­ menian composition. Whoever embarks on a critique of Moses Khorenats‘i is bound to attract fire from all directions. But if the venture is dangerous—even rash—it is no less enjoyable for that. A special word of gratitude is due Carol Cross for her patience and perseverance in the preparation of the manuscript.

R.W.T.

viii

Contents

Introduction History of the Armenians Appendix: The Primary History; The Origin of the Mamikoneans The Manuscripts Bibliography Index Index of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions Map

1 63

357 36g 371 3^7

4°5 410

T ranscription իլ խ

աբզղեզէըթժ

a

b

e z

g d

ё ё

t‘ zh

I kh

i

կ

Հ

ձ

ts k

հ

dz I

ծ

ղ

յ

ն

շ

ո

չ

պչռսվարց

ւ

ch m у

n

sh

о

ch'

p

ts‘

w

6

փ

if

ք

ու օ

p‘ k‘ и

o

j

r

s

v

t

r

Introduction

N Armenian tradition Moses Khorenats'i has come to be known as the “father of history” (Patmahayr) and his History as the embodiment of the old Armenian literary heritage. Indeed, no other writer has preserved as much of the pre-Christian Armenian past as Moses, and the preeminent rank given his History is well justified. Yet Moses was not only attempting to place the early history of Armenia in a world setting and to put the legends and traditions of Armenia’s heroes into a coherent schema, but he was also rewriting much of that history in a tendentious manner in order to glorify his patrons and to provide them with a splendid genealogy. Furthermore, he offers accounts that frequently differ from those in other sources, both Armenian and foreign; and he presents himself as a fifth-century scholar, though there are grave reasons for doubting this claim. Con­ sequently, no work in Armenian literature has aroused such controversy. But my purpose here is not to trace in detail the course of these controversies, where debate has often been influenced, wittingly or unwittingly, by unscholarly considerations of senti­ ment or bias. Rather, this introduction will seek to provide a general picture of Moses’ literary background, his sources and methods. I shall then attempt to clarify Moses’ purposes, to date his History, and to place it in the wider context of Armenian historical writing. i

Introduction

References to Moses in other Armenian writers In the first paragraph of this History the author identifies himself as Moses (Movses) Khorenats'i. As with many other Old Testament names, that of Moses was popular in Christian Arme­ nia, though more so in clerical and ecclesiastical circles than among the lay nobility. Khorenats'i means “from Khoren” or “Khorean,” but no such town or village is otherwise attested.1 Moses nowhere gives any precise information about his origins or his later career, save that he had been engaged in translating (III 65), but he does describe at some length his training as a scholar. Moses wishes to convey a certain picture to his readers. He claims to have been active in the circle of pupils around Mesrop (the inventor of the Armenian alphabet) and Sahak the patriarch in the early fifth century. After the ecumenical council of Ephesus (431) various Greek texts, including the Scriptures, were brought by young Armenian scholars from the Byzantine empire to Armenia. Sahak and Mesrop made a revised version of the Armenian Bible based on these texts, but their work being “deficient,” they sent Moses to Alexandria to study rhetoric (III 61). After studying in this now Christian city for an unspeci­ fied length of time, Moses made a grand tour to Rome (being blown to Italy while making for Greece), Athens, and Byzantium (III 62). Although he was looking forward to a gay time in the capital as a bold young man fond of dancing (III 68), the deaths of Sahak and Mesrop (in 43g and 440, respectively), cut short his travels and brought him back to Armenia. There he grew old as a scholar and translator, living under foreign domination (I 22). Moses makes no explicit reference to events after 440, except to bewail in general terms the hard times that had befallen Ar­ menia (III 68). His story is suspect on several counts. Apart from the pre­ tentiousness of the claim to possess erudition and rhetorical aptitude far superior to those of his teachers—for which, not surprisingly, he was mocked by their successors (III 68)—Moses’ whole account of his travels and study is a patchwork of quota­ tions from Anania Shirakats'i’s Autobiography, the Armenian version of Pseudo-Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance, and various 1. However, a village Khorea in the province of Siunik' is mentioned in the History of Stephen Orbelean (early fourteenth century). See further Hasrat'yan, Lraber 196g.

2

Introduction homilies by Gregory Nazianzenus.2 Furthermore, the name Mesrop is not found in other authors until the eighth century, the name Mashtots' being given to the inventor of the Armenian alphabet by all earlier writers.3 But more telling is the fact that no Armenian source before the tenth century refers to Moses among the pupils of Sahak and Mashtots', many of whom are mentioned by name. Only after 900 is Moses’ own claim taken up and echoed by later writers. The only possible reference to Moses Khorenats'i in the early literature is in a letter attributed to Lazar P‘arpets‘i, writing about 500 a.d. He mentions a “philosopher” Moses, dead by then, whose words “dispelled ignorance.”4 This Moses had incurred the enmity of the monks and had suffered expulsion like Lazar himself. But there is no suggestion in Lazar that this Moses had composed any historical works.5 A historian Moses is unknown to Armenian literature before the tenth century. John Catholicos (c. 850-c. 931) has only one specific reference to the “History of Moses Khorenats'i,”6 but he clearly knew it well and quotes it elsewhere without acknowl­ edgment. Thomas Artsruni, writing about the same time as John Catholicos, has numerous explicit references to Moses. In his own version of the ancient history of the world after Noah, he cites Moses Khorenats'i, or Moses Kert'ol several times;7 but he also refers to the fourth dprutiwn (“book” or “chapter”) of Moses in which figure Ninos, Semiramis, Abraham, and the sixteenth dynasty of Egypt.8 Thomas also notes Moses’ descrip­ tion of the death of Trdat at the end of book II.9 But two of his references call for more extended comment: his association of Moses, as the brother of Mambre, with disciples of Levond, who 2. See notes to III 62. 3. See II10 n. 7. 4. Lazar, Patmut'iwn, p. 202. But whether this letter was written by the historical Lazar is not certain. The text of his History in the printed editions is not entirely that of the original; see Sanspeur, REA 1973-1974. 5. The identification of Moses Khorenats'i with Moses the philosopher is upheld by Hasrat'yan, Lraber 196g, and Polarean, Hay Grolner, among others. 6. John Catholicos, Patmut'iwn, p. 53. 7. Thomas Artsruni, Patmut'iwn, p. 25, 27, 29, 53, 85, 196, 133. 8. Ibid., p. 29. But Ninos, Semiramis, Abraham, and the sixteenth dyn­ asty appear in chapter 5 of book I of Moses. 9. Ibid., p. 106.

3

Introduction was martyred in Persia in 45110 and the reference to a fourth book of Moses’ History, bringing the story down to the time of Emperor Zeno.11 Mambre is the reputed author of several religious homilies. In Armenian tradition he is associated with a number of young scholars who accompanied Moses on his journey to Alexandria. But the only reference to him before the time of Thomas is in the preface to Elegy on the Cross, ascribed to David the Philoso­ pher.12 David lived in the seventh century, but this fake preface makes him the nephew of Moses; its evidence for the histori­ cal Moses, or Mambre, is worthless. It also refers to Moses as kert‘olahyr. At the end of his book I Thomas Artsruni identifies Moses’ patron Sahak Bagratuni as the sparapet and aspet of Armenia, the predecessor in that office of Hamazasp Mamikonean and of the latter’s more famous son Vardan, who was killed at Avarayr in 451. But Thomas has confused Hamazasp and Vardan with Vardan’s brother Hamazasp and his nephew Vahan. For Sahak Bagratuni the sparapet died in 482 and wras succeeded by Vahan.13 According to Thomas it was Sahak who commanded Moses to write his history of Greater Armenia from Adam to the Emperor Zeno (474-491). But Moses’ History ends long before Zeno’s reign. For his support of the monophysite position Zeno was considered “blessed” by later Armenians,14 in contrast to his predecessors who supported the council of Chalcedon. Perhaps Thomas introduces Zeno because of the role this emperor played in the later legends concerning Gregory and the elaborations on the History of Agathangelos.15 As for the “fourth book,” Thomas says that Moses died in the time of Zeno “at the ripe old age of 120, as has been handed down in the fourth section (druag) of the promised History of Moses Khorenats'i.” Moses does in fact twice make an ^bscure reference to a further historical book (I 12, III 67), but none such is known from any other source. Furthermore, Thomas is totally wrong in asserting that Koriun confirms the existence of this book. In the same passage Thomas claims that Moses was a 10. 1 j. 12. 13. 14. 15.

4

Ibid., p. 85. Ibid., p. 133. David Anyalt', Matenagrut'iwnk', p. 5. See Toumanoff, Studies, p. 339. Girk' T'lt'ots', p. 49. Cf. Van Esbroeck, AB 1971, and REA 1971.

Introduction

fellow student of Koriun, which seems to be nothing but an expansion of his supposed association with Mambre. Thomas also calls Moses “the world-famous KerPol,”™ a title that became standard. Kert'ol means “poet,” “grammarian,” or “philologist.” It is not found in the earliest writers but is com­ mon in translations of the Hellenistic school.17 It was applied to Moses because of his claim to have engaged in translating and because of the attribution to him of the rhetorical work Yalags Pitoyits'.18 Moses himself uses the term Kert‘ol in the plural for “poets” (III 65). Later in the tenth century Moses Daskhurants'i calls Moses kert'olahayr (“father of poets/grammarians”),19 a title that was to remain standard. In the early eleventh century appeared the first lists of early Armenian historians that include Moses. Stephen of Taron puts Moses, “who was called the father of the kert‘olk‘, equal to Euse­ bius,” after Agathangelos and before Elishe. Stephen also claims that the great philosopher Moses introduced the art of rhetoric to Armenia and that he lived in the time of Peroz (shah of Iran, 459-483). Such could be read into Moses’ own History. But Stephen is the first to state that Moses was from the province of Taron and became bishop of Bagrevand and Arsharunik'.20 The later eleventh-century writer Gregory Magistros refers to Moses several times but without any details of his life.21 Twelfth-century writers have a more precise dating for Moses and his work. The chronicler Samuel of Ani claims that Moses died in 492, having written his History in q66.22 At the beginning of the following century Mkhitar of Ani refers fre­ quently to Moses as a source for his Chronicle but says nothing 16. Thomas, p. 106. 17. There has been some debate about the date when translations from Greek in the exceedingly literal fashion commonly called “Hellenistic” or “Hellenizing” began. But whether this was the late sixth or even late fifth century is not relevant here. Moses himself frequently uses caiques on Greek compound words not found in the earliest writers, but it would be difficult to date his History on these grounds alone. On Moses’ style see V. D. Arak'elyan, PBH 1975. 18. See Sgarbi, Rendiconti 1969. 19. Moses Daskhurants'i, Patmut'iwn, I 8. 20. Stephen of Taron, Patmut'iwn, pp. 7, 53, 79. Elishe describes the revolt of 450-451, so the placing of Moses is appropriate. 21. Gregory Magistros, T‘lt‘ere, pp. 9, 24, 63, 84. 22. See Samuel of Ani: Brosset, Collection, p. 385, for the date 466, and under year 492 (nib) for his death.

5

Introduction

specific about his date except for placing him between Koriun and Lazar in the second half of the fifth century.23 More detailed are the traditions found in Kirakos Gandzakets'i. He claims that Moses lived in the time of Leo the Great, emperor of Byzantium (457-474), and Peroz, King of Kings (459-484). He places Moses in a list of historians between Agathangelos and Elishe; he also knows of other works of his in addition to the History: the Petk‘ (the book of rhetoric noted above), the eulogy of Rhipsime and her companions, the Vardavar, the history of the holy Mother of God and her picture (presumably the supposed “Letter of Moses to Sahak Artsruni”), and other homilies and philosophical discourses. Kirakos in­ cludes Moses and his brother Mambre in a long list of pupils of Sahak and Mashtots'.24 In the same century the historian Vardan adds further details to the life of Moses. With David the Philosopher he at­ tended the council of Chalcedon to defend orthodoxy and was involved in a theological altercation with Melitos, metropolitan of Macedonia.25 Not surprisingly, Moses defends the truth, the “one nature of the incarnate Word of God.” This is a reference to the short treatise included in the Girk‘ T‘lt‘ots‘ and attributed to Moses Khorenats'i, bishop, the great Kert‘olahayr, which is a defense of the monophysite position.20 Mkhit'ar of Ayrivank' in the early fourteenth century places Moses before Lazar but after Thomas, mentioning him under the year 449.27 This astonishing reference to Thomas (Artsruni) as a fifth-century author must mean that Mkhit'ar knew of only the first book of Thomas’s History, which deals with the history of Armenia to the middle of the fifth century and ends with a long reference to Moses. Thomas Artsruni’s History was in fact hardly known in later centuries. Stephen Orbelean, writing History of Siunik' in the four­ teenth century, mentions Moses primarily in connection with some of his supposed pupils who were later bishops of Siunik'.28 The later Lesser Chronicles repeat much of what had become 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 25, 67. 28.

6

Mkhitar of Ani, Patmut‘iwn, p. 15. Kirakos, Patmut'iwn, pp. 28, 36. Vardan, Hawak'umn, pp. 54-5. Girk‘ T‘lt‘ots‘, pp. 22-8. Mkhitar of Ayrivank (in Brosset, “Histoire chronologique”), pp. Stephen Orbelean, Patmut'iwn, pp. 38, 56, 454.

Introduction

standard lore and place Moses at various dates in the second half of the fifth century.29 A new story links him with Erzerum, where outside the city he built a church whose foundations had been laid by Mesrop.30

The tradition is challenged This traditional picture of Moses, or at least Moses’ own claims in his History, were accepted by the first European scholars to study his work. J. J. Schroder used Moses extensively for his essay on Armenian history in his Thesaurus Linguae Armenicae (1711).31 The Whiston brothers in their translation of Moses (1736) were not too complimentary about his erudition, but they had no doubts about his fifth-century date, “which is confirmed by Nerses Claiensis of the twelfth century” (!).32 Bren­ ner (writing in 1724) put Moses’ floruit at about 430, immediately after the abolition of the Arsacid monarchy, described at the end of book III.33 But this conjecture overlooks the references to the deaths of both Sahak and Mashtots' in 439 and 440. Later in the eighteenth century the important Armenian scholar Ch‘amch‘ean had no doubts about Moses’ date and took his claim au pied de la lettre (1784).34 In the same decade Gibbon, using the Whistons’ translation, noted that “deficient as he is in every qualification of a good historian, his local information, his pas­ sions and his prejudices, are strongly expressive of a native and contemporary.”35 Ironically, on the same page where Gibbon used Moses for the history of Christianity in Armenia, he also quoted the “contemptible” evidence of the Acta sancti Silvestri, without knowing of Moses’ indebtedness to this apocryphal work.36 29. Lesser Chronicles, 1:340 (A.D.491), 2:15 (A.D.474). 30. Ibid., 2:567. 31. Schroder, Thesaurus Linguae Armenicae. 32. Whiston, Moses Chorenensis Historiae Armeniacae Libri III, p. xix: Scriptor videtur fuisse mediocriter tantum doctus, et maiore credulitate quam iudicio ex aliorum commentariis historiae suas contexuisse. Cf. Nerses, Opera, 2:243. 33. Brenner, Epitome Commentariorum Moysis Armeni de Origine et Regibus Armenorum et Parthorum, p. 1. 34. M. Ch'amch'eants', Patmut'iwn Hayots‘, vol. 1, esp. pp. 10-20. 35- E- Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 32. 36. Ibid., chap. 20.

7

Introduction

In the early nineteenth century Saint Martin in his valuable M emoires accepted Moses’ own account of himself but regarded the Geography as spurious.37 In the middle of the century Gat'rchean noted that there were difficulties in Moses’ chronol­ ogy, and he had reservations about the accuracy of the archives Moses claimed to be quoting.38 In a more critical spirit Gutschmid (in 1876) proved the secondary nature of much of Moses’ information, but like the several nineteenth-century translators of this History, he did not seriously challenge the date of Moses as a fifth-century historian.39 Only at the end of the nineteenth century, notably through the studies of Carriere and Khalateants',40 was it finally demon­ strated that Moses used texts composed later than the mid-fifth century and that the traditional picture of him as a pupil of Mash tots' and Sahak was untenable. Yet for nearly a century— from the 1890s to the present day—there has been no general agreement among Armenian and non-Armenian scholars on the date of this History. Rather than rehearse the long and involved story of this sometimes sterile controversy,41 it will be more interesting and valuable for us to examine in some detail the various literary sources Moses used. We shall then be in a better position not merely to date the work but also to evaluate as historiography this embodiment of early Armenian tradition. Moses’ attitude toward historiography It is only fair to Moses that we attempt to understand his own attitude toward historical writing before embarking on this essay in source criticism. At several points in his History he com­ ments on the subject matter, method, and purpose that are legitimate in historiography. The basic purpose of historical writing, according to Moses, is to bequeath a record to posterity (I 1). From history we learn about the state of civilization in earlier times and about the 37. Saint-Martin, Memoires historiques et geographiques sur I’Armenie, 2:301-2. 38. Gat'rchean, Tiezerakan Patmut‘iwn, esp. 1:87, 2:489, 518. 39. von Gutschmid, “Uber die Glaubwiirdigkeit der armenischen Geschichte des Moses von Khoren.” 40. See their various works in the bibliography. 41. For a succinct discussion of previous scholarship on Moses Khorenats'i and a bibliography, see Toumanoff, HA 1961.

8

Introduction

course of the world (I 3). But not everything that happened in the past is worthy of record; only the deeds of great men, both heroic exploits and notable acts of wisdom or justice, merit in­ clusion in books (I 3, 19, 24, 29, 31; II 1, 62, 64). Moses thus reflects the interests of a landed aristocracy where valor is assessed primarily on the basis of martial accomplishments. Hence his emphasis is on the tracing of genealogies (I 3)—the raison d’etre of hereditary nobility, but a pursuit that is open to tendentious­ ness and fraud. What is remarkable about Moses’ explicit philosophy of history, sustained by most of his narrative, is the absence of a didactic or moral attitude toward the lessons that can be learned from history. Unlike the generality of Armenian historians, Moses does not think of historical writing as an essay in expound­ ing God’s ways to men. He does not deny God’s general provi­ dence and purpose or his oversight of specific historical events, but he does not draw lessons of moral conduct that are held up for emulation. Nor does he remind his readers of the ultimate fate that befalls the wicked despite apparent, but transient, success. This does not mean that Moses has no professed moral standards. “Unsuitable” stories are to be omitted from historical writing, and there is no place for the ridiculous, the unseemly, or the obscene (I 19, Fables; II 63, 70; III 55). The historian thus has certain responsibilities. He must not only deal with elevated material, he must make sure that it is treated in a reliable fashion. He must avoid what may tend to create doubt or disbelief (II 64, 75). Therefore he must introduce no imaginary happenings; falsehood has no place (I 19; II 65, 70; III 63). Nor must the historian’s account be embellished with rhetoric to the extent that the truth is obscured (II6). Moses several times addresses himself to these two require­ ments of veracity and elegance. It is important that the style of the historical narrative be suitable for the importance of the topic (II 92). On the other hand, the narrative must be lucid, brief so that the reader is not wearied, and coherent (I 1, 32; II 59). In this last regard, Moses frequently insists on the importance of chronology: “There is no true history without chronology” (II 82). This comment means both that historical events have to be dated accurately in absolute terms and also that the historian must present his narrative in chronological order (I 32; II 27). This order may be broken occasionally for specific purposes; for example, a brief account of some past or future event may be

9

Introduction

inserted if its immediate relevance is explained (II 27, 68). But in general a strict chronological order is one of the guarantees of accuracy. To ensure the accuracy and veracity of his narrative, the historian must use his sources with care (II 75). Information that comes from books or other written evidence must be compared, and only reliable accounts should be followed (I 19; II 13, 75). If what happened is unclear, the historian must truthfully explain the problem and not attempt to give more credence to his story than its source permits (II 64). If the historian is uncertain or perplexed, he must so inform his readers (II 34). But not every­ thing is found in books or archives. Much important information is passed down by word of mouth. The historian must therefore ensure that he quotes from wise men, well versed in antiquarian lore and the stories of past heroes (I 19; II 75). Unfortunately some of these stories are told in allegorical fashion; these should not be taken literally but should be rationalized (II 61). Moses’ understanding of historiography is clear and explicit. To what extent he lived up to these high standards will be seen after a discussion of his use of written sources. But since oral traditions play a large role in his work, it will be helpful first to look more closely at what Moses says about these. Moses and his sources Tradition

Without mentioning any specific kind of source, Moses fre­ quently uses expressions such as “they say” or “as we have heard.” He can be referring to tales about Armenian heroes of the past, to various noble families’ claims to ancient pedigrees, or to stories about foreign lands. Once he uses the phrase “as is said” to refute a written source, without so noting explicitly;42 and an­ other time he refers to what “some unreliable men say” (I 22) to give a different version. In this last case he is introducing his theory of a Jewish origin for the Bagratuni family rather than the older tradition of a native Armenian origin.43 Far more frequently Moses speaks of a “song,” “tale,” or “fable’ as his source, and several times he quotes from them. Although his terminology is not always consistent, Moses clearly distinguishes between two basic types of unwritten sources, both 42. I 17 at n. 3, where Moses is referring to Eusebius’ Chronicle. 43. Cf. Introduction, p. 40. 1O

Introduction of which may be in poetical form and sung (or recited) rather than spoken in ordinary prose. These are the tale and the fable. The distinction is that the former is acceptable as it stands, whereas the latter is usually false in a literal sense; it is an allegory that needs interpretation for use as historical material. Moses uses various terms to describe the ancient stories and legends about the Armenian heroes: zroyts‘ “story”; specifically, “unwritten” (angir) at I 10, or “old” (hin) as at II 8. See also I 10; II 37, 81. gusanakan, I 14, used here as a substantive, “bard, minstrel.” nuag p‘andran “song on the lyre,” I 6. erg “song,” and other forms, nouns or verbs, derived from that stem. These tales are sung on the lyre (p'andirn), I 24, 31. They may be metrical (t‘ueleats‘ ergk‘), I 30. And the singers (ergich‘k‘) are associated notably with the province of Golt'n, I 30; II 49. vipasan “teller of tales” (vep), usually sung, II 48, 49, 51.

Fables are always called araspel, from which the verb araspelabanel (“to tell fables”) is derived. Fables are not to be taken literally because they are exaggerated (II 8), nonsense (I 7; II 70), false (II 42), or even obscene (Fables), though sometimes not very far from the truth (II 52).44 More significantly, however, such fables are allegorical. Allegories do have a true meaning (II 49); at least the Greek ones are meaningful, unlike the Persian ones, which he calls absurd (Fables). But they are not literal history and their interpretation may be uncertain (II 70). Moses does not always venture to explain the stories he describes as allegories—that of Hephaistos, for example (I 7), the cryptic proverb involving Niobe (I 18), or the naming of the town Vardges (II 65). But as an example of allegory—that is, the rationalization of myths or legends—Moses notes the description of Azhdahak’s descendants as descendants of the dragon. This is an allegorical naming, since Azhdahak means “dragon” (I 30). Similarly, the truth of the fable that mentions Artashes’ red leather strap with golden rings with which he captured Satinik is that lacquer and gold were the bride price he had to pay (II 50). It is also an allegory that the army of Domitian, which invaded Armenia, is described as a person called Domet (II 54). The fable that describes the placing of a dev 44. Cf. the expression in Faustos, III 13: ergs araspelats' vipasanut'eann; see in general Abelyan, Erker, 3:50-83.

11

Introduction in the place of the child Artavazd is given a “more reliable” (rational) explanation: Artavazd was mad (II 61). Archives

Although the Armenian script was not invented until the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries a.d., Moses claims that there were written records in Armenia long before that time and rec­ ords about Armenia kept in foreign archives. Moses berates the early Armenian kings for not keeping archives like those of the Greeks or Persians; for although the Armenians then had no script of their own, they could have used Greek or Persian—as was the custom for private families or for local records in his own time (I 3). Although Moses is not very clear on this point, by Greek or Persian writing (gir) he does not mean documents in the Arme­ nian language written in a foreign script but rather documents in those foreign languages. There is no evidence that the Arme­ nians ever used a foreign script for their own tongue before Mash tots” attempt to use the Aramaic script of Daniel.45 But Moses would have been familiar with Greek and Aramaic in­ scriptions and coins. The Urartian cuneiform inscriptions he naturally ascribes to the Assyrians (I 16). If the Armenians themselves kept no archives, Moses claims that the Parthian Arsacids (to which line the Armenian Arsacids were directly related) did keep records about Armenia in their archives. There is some confusion here, for Moses makes Nineveh the site of the archives (I 9). Nineveh, however, contained not the Parthian but the Assyrian records. According to Moses these archives had been translated from “Chaldaean” (cuneiform) to Greek at the command of Alexander the Great. And these, claims Moses, were his source for the legendary history of Armenia from the days of the giants down to the reign of Arshak I of Armenia— the famous extract made by “Mar Abas Catina.” In I 21 Moses again refers to Persian and Assyrian archives to contrast the in­ telligent records of these peoples with early Armenian neglect; however, he adds that “in recent times” the Armenians have begun to compose their own records. Presumably Moses is re­ ferring to the local archives mentioned in I 3. But it may be an oblique reference to the Histories of Faustos and Lazar to which he was greatly indebted but never mentions by name. Similarly in II 75 the reference to “archival books of the Greeks” is but a misleading description of a medley of Armenian and Greek his­ 45. For Daniel’s script see Koriun, pp. 12-13.

12

Introduction torical works.46 In III i Moses again bemoans the lack of early records for Armenian history. On the other hand Moses claims to be quoting from written archives for much of his second book: the temple history of Ani Khamakh (composed by Olympius and translated by Bardaisan— II 48, 66), the archives in Edessa that had been transferred there from Nisibis (by Abgar; II 27), and the temple history of Sinope in Pontus (II 10, 38). Olympius and his History and the archives of Sinope dealing with Armenia are unknown from other sources. But one’s confidence in Moses’ “archives” is even more shaken by the patently false claim in II 10 that Eusebius in his Church History (book I 13) bears withness to the existence in Edessa of archives dealing with Armenia, for Eusebius merely says that in the Edessan archives he had found correspondence between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus Christ. It is Moses, not Eusebius, who makes Abgar an Armenian king, makes Nisibis into an Armenian capital, and elaborates on the material to be found in the archives. It is true that Moses claims to be basing his narrative here on Africanus the chronographer and merely quotes Eusebius for corroboration, but it is not likely that Moses knew the Chronog­ raphy of Julius Africanus at first hand.47And more importantly, although that work has not survived intact, none of the many later historians who used it—including the other Armenian authors—suggests that Julius Africanus concerned himself with the acts of the Armenian kings. Earlier Written Histories

If archives and “temple histories” turn out to be but con­ venient vessels for Moses’ redaction of tradition, if not even inventions of his historical imagination, what of the real authors whom he claims to have used? At the beginning of his History Moses defends the reliability of the Greek historians, though he does not consider all their pagan fables and narratives to be infallible. He also acknowledges earlier Christian writers who have started their histories with Adam. Moses then proceeds to quote several of the Greek chron­ iclers but without informing his readers that he has read them at second hand in Eusebius’ Chronicle. In view of his extensive borrowings from both the Chronicle and the Church History, it is a cause for suspicion that Moses gives only a passing reference 46. See II 76 n. 1. 47. See II 10 n. 1.

13

Introduction

to Eusebius (II 10), and then in an obscure and deliberately false manner. In the first book of his History Moses quotes verbatim five historians who supposedly described the early history of the world, and he mentions the names of several others. However, with the exception of a condensed rendering in I 6 of Epiphanius’ Contra Haereses 83, Moses has either taken his quotations from Eusebius’ Chronicle or has faked his source. Abydenus is fre­ quently mentioned in Eusebius and then in Moses; but in I 5 Moses adds to his source by ascribing to Abydenus the list of Armenian heroes from Hayk to Ara. In I 6 Moses ascribes a quotation from the Oracula Sibyllina to Berossus. But more interestingly, in the same chapter he gives a long account of the origin of certain Armenian place names, which he ascribes to a Greek, Olympiodorus (mentioned again in II 74). There were various Greek writers of that name but none is likely to have had that interest in implausible etymologies for Armenian names that was so dear to Moses (I 6, 12; II 7, 8). Moses also mentions various Greek historical works without quoting them directly. Polyhistor48 and Arios were taken from Eusebius. Cephalion is mentioned—again via Eusebius (I 5, 18) —but Moses claims that the Chaldaean books used by Mar Abas Catina are more reliable. These books were kept in the archives at Nineveh, and from them Alexander had a Greek translation made. Making extracts from this Greek text, Mar Abas Catina brought them, with a Syriac translation, to Nisibis. Here the Armenian king Valarshak kept them securely in the palace. These documents supposedly provided Moses with his source material for chapters I 9 to II 9. But since it is precisely that part of the History that gives the story of the origin of the Armenian nation and its history to Parthian times, it is difficult not to treat the narrative of “Mar Abas Catina” with suspicion. Moses was familiar with the idea of Greek translations of Chaldaean books from Eusebius’ description of Berossus. He has adapted the idea to Armenian history, attributing to Assyrian sources an intimate knowledge of Armenian traditions and of historical events of the Parthian period after Alexander’s death. More difficult to assess are two references to (apparently) written Armenian sources, the history of the “Web of Chries” (I 19) and the “four rhapsodies” (I 21). Abelyan thought that 48. In the Armenian literal rendering: Bazmavep, I 4.

14

Introduction

they were the same.49 But after mentioning the former, Moses then quotes extensively from Eusebius’ Chronicle; whereas the “four rhapsodies” introduce more specifically Armenian tradi­ tions. However, in view of Moses’ predilection for inventing written sources, whether these traditions—notably concerning Tigran—were coherently organized in four books is doubtful. Similarly the reference to Gorgias, Banan, and David (I 6) as wise Greek writers is suspect. Moses never mentions the first two again, and he does not attribute any specific information to them. On the other hand, David has been identified with the philoso­ pher David Anyalt', concerning whom a vast mass of legendary material developed. But the fact that he is used here merely to introduce “Olympiodorus,” one of Moses’ own aliases, makes it impossible to place any reliance on this David as a historical character. In his second book, Moses quotes or refers to several Greek and Armenian authors who will deserve special discussion later: Eusebius, Josephus, Labubna (the Armenian version of the Syriac Teaching of Addai), and Agathangelos. Moses also men­ tions by name Hippolytus (II 10), Porphyry (via Eusebius), and Palephatos and Philemon (II 69). These last two are enigmatic; with “many others” they are among the sources for relations between Romans and Parthians. Moses also refers in explicit terms, quoting them but not directly, to Herodotus (II 2, via Theon) and Manetho (II 13, via Eusebius). More suspiciously, Moses adduces Julius Africanus as a source for Armenian history, in particular for the period of Artashes (II 10). And to elevate the exploits of Artashes I above those of Alexander or the greatest Achaemenian kings, Moses introduces quotations describing the Armenian king from numerous obscure or unknown Greek writers: Polycrates, Evagoras, Scamadros, and Phlegonius (II 13)Around the later Artashes II numerous Armenian legends and poems accrued, some of which Moses quotes. He attributes his description of this Artashes’ death and funeral to Ariston of Pella, an author he knew from Eusebius’ Church History. In fact, the description of the funeral (II 60) is based on that of Herod in Josephus. Here Moses has again claimed a fake written source for a purely Armenian tradition, and his description is based on an unacknowledged written source. This is a literary 49. See I 21 n. 2.

15

Introduction procedure dear to him. As we shall see, Josephus and the Alex­ ander Romance, for example, were particularly important sources from which Moses extracted passages that he could adapt to his own purposes. Similarly Moses (II 75) claims the authority of Firmilian of Caesarea (d. soon after 268) for the history of Armenia down to the reign of Trdat, which he places in 287. Again, o 7 Moses knew the name of the Greek writer from Eusebius, 7 but the supposed historical work is a complete fake, replete with extraordinary anachronisms, including the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria (which occurred in 311.) For his actual account Moses relies on quite different, unacknowledged, written texts. Reference has already been made to Moses’ use of archives supposedly kept in Armenia. He claims to be basing chapters 22-65 of his second book on the temple history of Olympius, priest of Ani Kamakh. But in fact it is primarily to Josephus, Eusebius, Labubna, and Agathangelos that Moses is indebted here, with minor contributions from biblical and hagiographical texts and the Alexander Romance. As for the additions to Olympius’ history and its translation into Syriac by Bardaisan (II 66), these are further fancies of Moses’ own invention. The same must be said for the Syriac book of Barsuma, trans­ lated into Greek by a Persian, Khorohbut, the former scribe of King Shapuh, who was converted to Christianity (II 70). Moses refers to popular Persian legends, some of which were incor­ porated into the Karnamak, known in Armenian. But his real source for the wars between Khosrov and Artashir after Artavan’s death is not some Persian History but the Armenian Agath­ angelos. In his third book Moses no longer claims to be using foreign sources that contain detailed accounts of Armenian traditions. On the other hand, he does not acknowledge the Armenian writers to whom he was principally indebted: Faustos and Lazar. Even Koriun he mentions by name only once (III 60), omitting to note that Koriun’s biography of Mashtots' was another of his prime sources. It is now time to turn from the negative to the positive, from an exposure of frauds to an examination of the texts that Moses did use, with or without acknowledgment. Instead of approach­ ing Moses’ source material in the order in which he presents his narrative, I shall discuss his sources by general types. These fall into the following broad categories: biblical writings, both ca­ nonical and apocryphal; non-Armenian texts, which can be further subdivided into (pagan) Greek sources, Jewish writers,

16

Introduction Josephus and Philo, and Christian writers, Greek or Syrian (where direct dependence can be shown, Moses always uses an Armenian version of his Greek sources, not the original); and Armenian texts.

Moses and the Bible In view of the ecclesiastical stamp of Armenian historiog­ raphy in general and of Moses’ wide theological reading in particular, it is natural to begin this inquiry with a discussion of Moses’ use of biblical themes. It is remarkable that Moses quotes from biblical books directly only fourteen times in the whole of his History, and only some twenty or so close allusions can be adduced.50 However, Scripture does provide Moses with a wealth of unacknowledged material. Moses’ attitude toward the Bible is explicit: it can provide information about historical events of the past; it can contain prophetic utterances that Moses can see fulfilled in events of his own time, thus confirming the preordained will of God; or it can provide useful examples and parallels that edify the reader— or at least lend verisimilitude to Moses’ own narrative. In the first place, Scripture provides a historical record. Moses contrasts the lack of written information about the Arme­ nian past with the literature of the Jewish historians (here biblical authors, not Josephus; I 3). But in addition to informa­ tion about the fortunes of Israel, the Bible also contains facts about the beginnings of the world and its early population. Since all mankind is descended from Noah through the lineage of his three sons, Sem, Ham, and Japheth, the Armenians too have a place in the biblical genealogies; so the most ancient heroes of Armenian tradition are grafted onto the biblical schema, thus providing a point of chronological reference. Moses is here indebted to Eusebius’ Chronicle for both his general approach and more specifically for the texts of the genealogies (I 5, 19). The Bible continues to provide historical information down to Christian times. For example, Jeremiah refers to the kingdom of Armenia, giving Moses another chronological checkpoint (I 22). The story of the murder of Senekerim (Sennacherib) by his two sons, who then fled to Armenia, brings a more pertinent connection between historical events outside Armenia and local history. Through one of Senekerim’s sons, Sanasar, various Ar50. See the index of biblical allusions and quotations.

17

Introduction menian noble families could claim an Assyrian origin (I 23). Sometimes a historical event or period mentioned in the Bible provides a useful comparison. Such was the time of anarchy and unrest in Israel after the Judges, which had a parallel in the desire for independence on the part of Bakur, bdeashkh of Aldznik' (III 4). But Moses Khorenats‘i goes beyond the mere noting of parallels to inferences that are not justified by any explicit statements in the Bible. For example, Luke informs us that Christ was born at the time that Augustus Caesar had de­ creed a universal census. Since Armenia was a province of Rome, Roman agents must have come to Armenia bringing the image of Augustus, which they set up in every temple. Luke does not mention Roman agents going to the provinces or the images of Augustus, but Moses has embroidered the episode as a means to introduce another apocryphal story about war between Herod and the contemporary king of Armenia (II 26). Or again, Moses connects the reference in John 12 to Greeks who wished to speak to Jesus with the messengers from King Abgar to Jesus as men­ tioned in the Abgar legend (II 31). Clearly Scripture was no more sacrosanct to the inventive Moses than any other written source. Scripture also provides numerous prophetic statements whose realization comes much later. For example, the origin of the Parthians is traced back to the promise made by the Lord to Abraham concerning the offspring of his second wife (II 1). The most numerous category of biblical references is that of edifying parallels and comparisons. These are fairly common­ place; for example: Licinius is compared to the leopard or Ethiopian who cannot change his nature (Jer. 13:23). II 91 Gregory’s relics were hidden like those of Moses (Deut. 34:6); Aristakes is described as a “spiritual sword” (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12) and Gregory as a “divine palm tree” (Ps. 91:13-14). II 92 There are numerous biblical parallels in the lament over the present sad times. Ill 7 Bishop Jacob is angry, like Moses leaving Pharaoh (Exod. 11:9), and there are various biblical parallels to the cursing of the land. Ill 17 Tiran is blinded like Sedekiah (4 Kings 25:7). Ill 63 Sahak quotes Ps. 73:19 to justify his conduct. Ill 66 The Armenian princes refer a saying of Jesus (Matt. 18:7) to themselves; the Persian king Yazkert did

II 88

18

Introduction

Ill 68

not realize that “the Lord scatters the intentions of the heathen” (Ps. 32:10). There are extensive biblical allusions describing the loss of Sahak and Mashtots'.

Frequently Moses does not acknowledge his biblical source. Many of such allusions are clear, but occasionally a fortuitous parallelism may have occurred. For example, in I 13 Aram pierces the forehead of Mades with an iron nail; the same word (ts‘its‘) is used in Judges 4:21 for the nail with which Jael pierced Sisera’s temples. Was the parallel in Moses’ mind? But the paral­ lel was undoubtedly conscious in II 40: seventeen men fell from the city wall like “early-ripening fig trees” blown down in a violent storm, a simile based on the “early-ripening fig” of Isaiah 28:4. Of all the biblical writings, however, the books of Maccabees have left the greatest unacknowledged imprint on Moses’ His­ tory. Here Moses follows a general trend among early Armenian historians who were struck by the parallels between the struggle of the Maccabees against the Seleucids and that of the Armenians against the Persians. In Moses there is only one such reference to the Maccabees: in III 68 Antiochus and Matathias are cited as an example of resistance to oppression. (The reference in II 14 to Judas Maccabaeus is for comparative dating; no other parallel is made there.) But on numerous occasions Moses has taken his description of some event or circumstance from the Armenian text of the first two books of Maccabees. For example: The description of Tigran I’s battle array is modeled on that of Antiochus in 1 Масс. 6:39 and 2 Масс. 5:3 (cf. also III 37). II 2 The description of the Roman empire comes from 1 Масс. 8:3. II 9 The description of the profanities imposed on the Jews in Armenia by Arshak I is modeled on Antio­ chus’s persecution in 1 Масс. 1:43. II 13 Artashes’ military prowess is modeled on that of Antiochus in 2 Масс. 5:21. II 47 The description of noble insignia has parallels in 1 Масс. 11:58. II52 The description of Smbat is based on that of Eleazar in 2 Масс. 6:23. Ill 37 The description of the battle of Dzirav is based on 1 Масс. 6:39 and 2 Масс. 5:3 (cf. also I 24).

I 24

19

Introduction There is nothing surprising in these several parallels. Faustos was the first to use the text of Maccabees for battle descriptions; Koriun, Agathangelos, Lazar, and Elishe were all indebted to Maccabees for numerous turns of phrase. Indeed the general use in Armenian of awrenk‘ to denote the Christian religion is probably derived from the Armenian version of Maccabees.51 It is not necessary to expand here on Moses’ use of biblical terminology, for the major points are already clear. Scripture gives Moses both a historical framework and a series of edifying examples. But more importantly for Moses’ own approach to historiography, he can take liberties with his source, building fantastic stories out of a few sober details; he also frequently takes passages from unacknowledged sources and uses them for literary effect in an entirely different context. Both of these characteristics can be seen not only in Moses’ use of biblical material but in his general attitude to all written sources. Moses does not always follow the Armenian textus receptus of the Bible verbatim. He takes liberties with the text to suit his own purposes, or paraphrases rather than gives a literal render­ ing. On one occasion (II 88) he follows the Greek Septuagint against the Armenian and Syriac Peshitta, mentioning the “Ethi­ opian” rather than the “Indian” who cannot change his skin. But here Moses is probably translating the biblical text of Gregory Nazianzenus, whom he is quoting. The rendering in II 31 of John 12:20 does not follow any of the standard versions but is a simplified version, probably Moses’ own.

Moses and classical Greek literature The prime concern of the inventor of the Armenian alpha­ bet, Mashtots', was the translation of texts useful for the church. Naturally the mass of material translated from Greek and Syriac in the first century of Armenian literacy was ecclesiastically oriented,52 but works by the philosophers Plato and Philo were also rendered into Armenian, and some Armenians were familiar with a far wider range of non-Christian texts in the original Greek. After the fifth century there was a development of interest in Aristotelian philosophy, represented by translations and origi­ nal commentaries on logic, the translation of Porphyry’s Eisagoge, and the translation of works by Aristotle. The study of 51. See in general Thomson, JTS 1975. 52. See, for example, Thomson, SP 1975.

20

Introduction

grammar and rhetoric, mathematics, and astronomy was also pursued in Armenia. But outside these somewhat technical fields little of the ancient classical literature was rendered into Arme­ nian, and few Armenians showed any interest in Homer, Sophocles, or other literary figures.53 Moses was no exception. Although he refers several times to stories from the Iliad or Odyssey, he is always quoting at second hand. He used other texts to give the impression that he had received a good classical education. Moses has several references to ancient Greek deities and legendary heroes. He mentions Hephaistos, the first man and inventor of fire (I 7), but this reference comes from the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle. The heroic exploits of Vahagn are likened to those of Heracles (I 31), but this identification of Vahagn and Heracles was standard in early Armenian litera­ ture.54 Pluto appears in III 62, but this mention comes from the Armenian version of Ps.-Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance. The story of Pasiphae and the Minotaur (II 37) seems to be based on Philo, and the reference to Niobe in I 18 may be based on the Book of Chries. Moses mentions the images of Artemis, Heracles, and Apollo (II 12), but he is merely elaborating on Agathangelos and the Armenian Alexander Romance. The reference to the sculptors Scyllas and Dipenes, in the same chapter is probably taken from a patristic source. The reference to Pegasus (II 62) comes from the Alexander Romance. Moses also refers to Homer and to episodes from the Iliad and Odyssey. His general reference to the Ilian war (I 32) is taken from Eusebius’ Chronicle. The similes involving Odys­ seus’ slaughtering Penelope’s suitors and the struggle of Lapitha and the Centaurs (II 63) are taken from the Alexander Romance. The comparison between Achilles and Thersites (III 19) comes from the Armenian version of Theon’s Progymnasmata or the Armenian version of the Scholia of Nonnus.55 The reference to Achilles’ jumping the Scamander (III 40) is from the Alexander Romance, there being no exact parallel in the Iliad. But the reference to Alexander’s being the twenty-fourth descendant of Achilles (II 1) is taken from Eusebius’ Chronicle. 53. For a general survey of Armenian literature, see Inglisian, “Die Armenische Literatur,” in Deeters et al., Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen. 54. See I gin. 5. 55. Where the Armenian texts both have similar phrasing, see III 19 n. 4.

21

Introduction None of Moses’ references to classical authors is based on a personal reading of the original texts. His reference to Ptolemy and the geographers (I 30) is based on the first section of the Ashkharats'oyts‘; the quotation ascribed to Plato {Fables, at note 5) is taken verbatim from the Armenian of Philo, who in turn is quoting a Pythagorean, not Platonic, saying; the reference to Herodotus and the division of the world into three regions (II 2) is taken from the Armenian version of Theon’s Progymnasmata; and the assertion that “some histories” tell of Cyrus’ conquest of Lydia (II 13) is taken from the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle. Moses therefore depends for his knowledge of classical myth­ ology and literature on Armenian sources: the translations of Eusebius’ Chronicle, of Ps.-Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance, of Theon’s Progymnasmata, of Nonnus’ Scholia, of works by Philo of Alexandria, and perhaps the Book of Chries. Moses does not seem to have quoted Nonnus elsewhere, but Theon provided him with a rhetorical aphorism (I 8)—which Moses attributes to Arshak the Great—and a definition of the art of historical writing (I 1). The Book of Chries is in a rather different category, not least because it is an original Armenian composition traditionally ascribed to Moses himself. Although no definite verbal depen­ dence by Moses on this rhetorical textbook can be proved, it does serve as an illustrative epitome of Armenian interest in classical learning and rhetoric.56 Byzantine Chronicles

Of historical works written in Greek Moses uses widely five that were available in Armenian: Josephus, the Alexander Ro­ mance of Ps.-Callisthenes, the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical His­ tory of Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates. There are also numerous parallels between Moses and Malalas. No Armenian version of Malalas is attested, and if Moses is in fact acquainted with this chronicle firsthand, he does not quote it so precisely as he does his other sources. The parallels are these: II 13

The Pythian oracle concerning Chroesus; cf. Mala­ las, Chronographia, pp. 155-6.

56. For the Book of Chries see Sgarbi, Rendiconti 1969; and for Moses’ debt to classical rhetorical traditions, see Abelyan, Erker 3:301-5.

22

Introduction II 76

II 79

II 83 II 87 II 88

Ill 12 III 21

Ill 29

Ill 33 II 39

Ill 41

The death o£ Emperor Tacitus in the land of the Tsans; cf. Malalas, pp. 301-2. The war of Probus against the Goths, his murder instigated by famine; cf. Malalas, p. 302. The signum that appeared to Constantine (this term is not in the Acts of Silvester, Moses’ main source for the episode); cf. Malalas, pp. 316-7. Shapuh asks Constantine for peace; cf. Malalas, p. 31?The description of Constantinople; cf. Malalas, p. 320.57 Constantius’ death at Mopsuestia; cf. Malalas, pp. 325-6The story of Rodanus and Emperor Valentinian; cf. Malalas, p. 339. The death of Valentinian, Valens’ war against the Goths; cf. Malalas, pp. 341-2. Theodosius’ destruction of temples; cf. Malalas, p. 343-58 Theodosius and the massacre at Thessalonica; cf. Malalas, p. 347. The spelling of Milan—parallel to Malalas’ Mizulanum, p. 348.

There are also a few details common to Moses and the Chronicon Pascale not found in Malalas:

The reference to Carus’ sons. An addition to Malalas’ description of Constanti­ nople. Ill 33 Constantine closed (but did not destroy) the pagan temples.5^

II 79 II 88

It is difficult to prove that Moses is quoting from either Malalas or the Chronicon Pascale because the verbal parallels are rarely very close. The three writers are indebted to common sources, many of which are now lost. Of Ammianus Marcellinus, whose history (in Latin) is a prime source for the fourth century, Moses shows no knowledge whatever. 57. But see nn. 6 and 7 to II 88 for various additional parallels. 58. But there is a closer parallel in the Armenian Socrates; see III 33 n. i.

59. For these three passages, see Conybeare, BZ 1902.

23

Introduction The Alexander Romance

Of the historical works that Moses does use, the Alexander Romance is in a special category.60 Moses uses it not as a source for historical events (that is, for the life of Alexander) but as a mine for literary borrowings, adapting many of its striking phrases, descriptions, or even whole episodes to his own narra­ tive. Just as Moses adapted passages from the books of Maccabees, he does so, though in greater number, from Ps.-Callisthenes. They can be divided into two groups: examples of imagery or brief parallels, and more extended and closer borrowings. Exam­ ples of brief verbal parallels are:

The hill where Bel was slain; Proteus’ tomb on an eminence on the island of Pharos (§84). I 15 Semiramis as “lascivious”; Nectanebo’s desires on queen Olympias (§6). II 12 Bronze images of Artemis, Heracles, and Apollo; those of Heracles and Athena (§274). II 14 The statue of Barshamin embellished with ivory, crystal, and silver; the tablet with a horoscope made of ivory and crystal (§8). II 33 The ending of Abgar’s letter to Tiberius; Zeuxis’ letter to Philip and Olympias (§39). II 60 The burial of Artashes; that of Darius in §209 (though here Moses depends primarily on Josephus). II 62 References to Pegasus (cf. §31). II 63 Trdat Bagratuni enamored of Nazinik; Pausanias enamored of Olympias (§67). II 79 King Trdat’s love of horse riding; that of Alexander (§32)III 17 Shapuh’s title; that of Darius (§103); Shapuh in­ vites Tiran to consultations; Darius asks his senerals’ advice (§150). Ill 21 Valentinian’s anger; that of lollas at being struck by Alexander (§262). Ill 32 Khad’s abusers are assailed; Alexander slays the guests at his father’s second marriage (§58). Ill 47 Mesrop reflects on the end of the Armenian king­ dom; Nectanebo reflects on the Egyptian kingdom (§4).

I 11

60. For general studies of the Armenian version of the Alexander Ro­ mance see Tashian, Vsumnasirut"iwnk‘; Akinean, Byzantion 1938; Skinner, “Alexander Romance.”

24

Introduction

III 57 Anatolius’ title in Sahak’s address; that given to Alexander by the Persians (§203). Ill 58 The nobles of western Armenia gather around Mesrop; the levies respond to Alexander’s call for soldiers (§71).

In the preceding examples Moses adapted a striking phrase to enliven his own narrative. Some of the brief correspondences might be considered fortuitous were it not for the clear impact that the Alexander Romance had on Moses, as evidence by the following adaptations of whole episodes:

The battle between Artashes and Eruand and that between Alexander and Darius (§§114-16). II 63 Trdat Bagratuni likened to Odysseus slaughtering Penelope’s suitors, and the image of the struggle between Lapiths and Centaurs at Perithous’ mar­ riage. Trdat’s behavior is modeled on that of Pausanias attempting to snatch away Olympias at a singing festival, and the classical similes come from the account of Alexander at his father’s second mar­ riage feast (§§58-9, 67). Ill 26 Shapuh’s siege of Tigranakert; that of Tyr by Alex­ ander (§100). Ill 40 Varazdat’s prowess at sport; the description of con­ tests at Pisa (§49). Ill 62 The extended description of Alexandria (§§79, 84, 88, 97). II 46

Josephus

The Alexander Romance served Moses Khorenats'i as a literary source in the sense that he took over passages for descrip­ tive purposes. Quite different was his use of the Jewish Wars by Josephus, for here he adapts passages that originally had nothing to do with Armenia and makes them refer to supposed episodes in Armenian history. The only surviving Armenian translation of Josephus’ Wars was made in 1660 by Stephen of Lvov from the Latin version; it was printed in 1787 in Constantinople. How­ ever, Conybeare was undoubtedly right in seeing this not as a translation de novo but as a rehandling or revision of an earlier translation made before the time of Moses. The verbal parallels between this printed text and Moses are so many, so precise, and sometimes so extended, that it is inconceivable that a translation 25

Introduction made from Latin could provide such parallels fortuitously.61 Moses quotes Josephus by name on five occasions, but each reference is attended by suspicious circumstances. I4 Moses refers to two columns erected by Enos, “as Josephus says,” but their location was unknown. However, Josephus, Antiquities (I 2.3), does not men­ tion Enos, although he does mention the spot where the columns were erected (Siriad). It is doubtful that Moses was acquainted with the Antiquities as op­ posed to the Jewish Wars; here the reference to Josephus probably comes at second hand. There are, in fact, two very clear examples of Moses referring to Josephus at second hand: II 26 Worms grew inside Herod, “as Josephus narrates”; but this is a direct citation from the Armenian ver­ sion of Eusebius’ Chronicle (2:260) and Ecclesiastical History (I 7), where Josephus is indeed mentioned as the source. II 35 “Josephus bears witness” to Helen’s charity. This account of Helen has been taken from the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (II 12), where Josephus is quoted. If these indirect references may be forgiven as literary li­ cense, nonetheless on two other occasions Moses definitely dis­ torts his reading of Josephus:

II 10

Moses says that Josephus and others corroborate

61. Conybearc, JTS 1908. No Armenian version of Josephus’ Antiquities is attested. There are close verbal parallels between Moses and the 1787 ver­ sion in the following passages: Moses, II 14: Josephus, I, 5.3 (p. 28 of the Armenian) 11 15: I 6.2,1 6.6 (pp. 29, 31) II 16: I 8-7 (P- 37) II 17: I 8.8 (p. 38) II 18: I 8.9 (p. 38) II 19: see Conybeare, JTS 1908 II 23: I >8.5 (p- 69) I 21.11 (p. 80) II 25: II 60: I 33-9 (P- 121-2) I 16.4 (p. 60) in 45: For the Armenian Josephus see further the bibliography in Schreckenberg, Flaviusjosephus-Tradition, p. too.

26

Introduction

Africanus where the latter quotes from the Edessan archives concerning Armenia. But these archives— supposedly brought from Nisibis and Sinope—are a figment of Moses’ own imagination.62 II 15 Moses says that Josephus corroborates his own fanci­ ful account of the death of Mithridates of Pontus— at the hands of Pontius Pilate’s father! He then quotes Jewish Wars (I 6.6); but this passage merely states that news reached Pompey near Jericho of Mithridates’ death. Josephus has no reference to the father of Pontius Pilate. Moses provides us with an­ other example of his etymological ingenuity. He seems to imply that the Latin name Pontius is asso­ ciated with the Anatolian province Pontus. In light of these mystifications, it is not suprising that Moses frequently uses Josephus without so acknowledging. We may first note some examples of adaptation for literary effect, and then the more interesting examples of the false introduction of Armenia onto the world scene. For his accounts of the invasions of Alans and Basilk‘ Moses adapts Josephus’ description of the Alan invasion into Armenia, Wars (VII 7.4), in which Tiridates was nearly captured by being caught in a net and the Parthian king ransomed his wife and harem. II 60 Part of the description of Artashes’ funeral is taken from Josephus’ account of Herod’s funeral, Wars (I 23-9)III 45 The description of men in suspended iron chests attacking thieves in a cave is based on Josephus, Wars (I 16.4).

II 50, 85

The most elaborate of Moses’ adaptations of Josephus’ Wars come in book II. Here Moses has two main purposes: to boost the international significance of the Armenian kings Tigran and Artavazd in the wars between Rome and Parthia and to account for the Jewish colonies in Armenia and the Jewish origin of the Bagratuni family, to whom his work is dedicated.

II 14 Josephus (Wars I 5.3) says that Tigran withdrew from the siege of Ptolemais because of Lucullus’ ar62. See above, p. 13.

27

Introduction

II 15

II 16 II 17 II 18

II 19

II 20 II 23

II 24 II 26

rival in Armenia; Moses changes Lucullus into a “brigand” Vaykun, who gave his name to a district in northeastern Armenia. Josephus (Wars I 6.2) says that Scaurus was sent from Armenia (where Pompey was fighting Tigran) to Syria; Moses omits the reference to Armenia and says Scaurus was sent to Syria to fight Tigran (who had left because of Vaykun, as in II 14). Josephus (Wars I 8.7) says that Gabinius led an at­ tack on the Parthians; Moses claims that Gabinius opposed Tigran but was forced to retreat. Moses makes Tigran the victor over Crassus at Charrae instead of the Parthians (cf. Wars I 8.8). Again Tigran and the Armenians, instead of the Parthians, are introduced as the opponents of the Romans—this time under Cassius (cf. Wars I 8.9). The Parthian Barzaphran is made into an Armenian —prince of the Rshtunik'—and the Parthian Pacorus, a cup bearer, is made into the Armenian Gnel Gnuni (cf. Wars I 13). Moses has the Armenians throw Silon back on Vendidius; Josephus (Wars I 16.4) merely says the latter summoned Silon. Moses makes no reference to the Parthians as the object of Antony’s war but claims that Artavazd was his target (cf. Wars I 18.5). Moses claims that the Armenians, not the Parthians, held prisoner Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, and later released him (cf. Wars I 22). Moses claims that Herod’s nephew Joseph was killed by the Armenian army under Abgar; but this was Herod’s brother, and he was killed in the mountains near Jericho (Wars I 17.1).

In view of these idiosyncratic elaborations to Josephus, we must look with some caution on Moses’ description of the Jewish colonies settled in Armenia in the time of Tigran. In II 14 he tells of Tigran’s many Jewish captives taken from Palestine who were then settled in Armavir (II 16). A later colony was settled in Van at the time of Hyrcanus’ captivity (II 19). According to Moses the Jews from Armavir were moved to Eruandashat when Eruand built his new capital (II 39). Then when Artashes be­ came king he built another new capital, Artashat; once again 28

Introduction the Jewish captives were moved (II 49). In II 65 Moses refers to the Jewish settlement at Valarshapat established by Tigran. The Jewish colonies in the three towns of Van, Artashat, and Valar­ shapat are mentioned again in III 35. Here lies the clue, for in that chapter Moses was following the account of Faustos who (IV 55) describes the destruction of those cities by the Persians and the removal of the population, including Jews. Faustos asso­ ciates the origin of the Jewish communities in Armenia with Tigran, though he does erroneously place this in the time of Hyrcanus’ captivity. What Moses has done with his account of the Jewish colonies in Armenia is parallel to what he did with his account of the origin of Armenian idol worship. The use that Moses made of information in Agathangelos about Armenian paganism was studied in detail long ago, notably by Carriere,63 who demon­ strated clearly enough that Moses knew nothing more about pagan Armenia than what he found in his sources. The important thing is not that Moses presents his information in a different order but that he has explanations. Familiar with the identifica­ tion of Aramazd with Zeus, Anahit with Artemis, and so forth, Moses is able to claim that statues of the various Greek deities were brought to Armenia by King Artashes I after his war against Chroesus, king of Lydia (II 12). Artashes’ son Tigran then built temples for these statues—at the very sites described in Agath­ angelos that Gregory visited on his idol-smashing journeys. The statue of the Syrian deity Barshamin Tigran brought from Mesopotamia at the time of his wars in Palestine. In other words, the Greek or Syrian origin of these cult statues gave Moses a clue. Choosing a suitable example of Armenian intervention in Greek or Syrian lands—real or imagined—he asserts that this was the occasion for the introduction of specific idols. Instead of merely repeating his information, Moses inte­ grates the deails into his own framework. True to his dictum of no true history without chronology, Moses fits the information taken from Faustos into his narrative chronologically. He is not an independent witness but is rewriting in vivid terms what was previously known. Sometimes this attitude to historiography has plausibility, but sometimes it is a complete fraud. Such is the case with the integration of Armenian nobles into the story of ArmenianParthian-Roman relations based on Josephus and especially with 63. Carriere, Sanctuaires.

29

Introduction the justification of the Bagratid claim to a Jewish origin. Here is a clear example of a claim to ancient pedigree—politically valuable when the Bagratuni family had risen to preeminence—care­ fully elaborated by a series of references to supposedly historical events in far earlier times. Then the argument is clinched by linguistic evidence—a series of far-fetched parallels between biblical and Armenian personal names. At the time of Nebuchadnezzar, says Moses (I 22), the con­ temporary Armenian king, the legendary Hracheay, requested the Assyrian monarch for one of his leading Jewish captives, Shambat, whom he settled in Armenia; from Shambat descended the Bagratids. Thus two points are immediately established: the antiquity of the family and their social prominence, Shambat en­ joying an honorable position a thousand years before the time Moses claims to be writing, and the Jewish connection proved by etymology. Without so acknowledging, Moses has derived Bagarat from the P‘ak‘arat of Nehemiah 7:59, who was one of the Jewish captives taken by Nebuchadnezzar. And the name Shambat he has invented to account for Smbat, a Bagratid personal name common in his own day. Moses’ explicit etymology for Bagarat is Bagadia, a pseudo-Jewish name (II 63). The later Shambat Bagarat in the early Parthian period was made governor of west­ ern Armenia by Valarshak (II 3), and he then acquired the titles aspet and coronant (II 7). From the time of the earliest written Armenian sources these titles were indeed held by the Bagratids.64 In the reign of Valarshak’s son and successor, Arshak, claims Moses, the sons of Bagarat were persecuted for their Judaism. Two were martyred; the others made some concessions but re­ fused to worship idols (II 9). The religious steadfastness of the Bagratids is thus established, as well as their political standing. Tigran also persecuted the Bagratids, says Moses (II 14), but although they still refused to sacrifice they did not lose their office of aspet or the right of crowning. Moses places the Christian connections of the Bagratids in the earliest days of the church; they are associated with the preaching of Thaddaeus in Edessa—the same apostle who later came to Armenia. Tobias, in whose house Thaddaeus lodged in Edessa, was, according to Moses (II 33), a Jewish Bagratid prince who had fled persecution in Armenia. Moses does explicitly say that Tobias (Bagratuni) was converted, thus the role of the Bagratids in supporting Christianity even before the conversion 64. See II 7 n. 1, and cf. II 8 at n. 31.

30

Introduction

of Armenia is definitely implied. This claim would not be irrele­ vant, since the Mamikonean family—whom the Bagratids had replaced as the dominant force in Armenia and whose role Moses consistently negates—had married into the house of Gregory the Illuminator. But for Moses, Gregory is not the first apostle of Christianity in Armenia; his patrons thus have a more ancient, and hence more honorable, claim to an association with the first apostles. Philo

The other Jewish writer to whose Greek works Moses is indebted is Philo. But here, as with Ps.-Callisthenes, Moses’ debt is strictly literary. He has taken expressive phrases or descriptions and adapted them for his own purpose; he has not used Philo to rewrite the history of Armenia. Nonetheless, some of his adapta­ tions are rather bold—as, for example, when Moses applies to himself a phrase of Philo’s concerning the rational Logos! So it is not surprising that Moses never acknowledges that he read the Armenian versions of Philo, which were produced in the sixth and seventh centuries.65 As with other sources Moses used, one can distinguish the borrowing of an expressive phrase and the direct quotation of a longer passage. In the former category belong:

The description of Vahagn as the sun god (De Decalogo). II 37 The origin of the Minotaur (De Animalibus). Ill 55 The expression “to fly” (De Animalibus); the lust of Khosrov for the singer, based on Philo’s descrip­ tion of the lust of the male crocodile for the female (De Animalibus). Ill 65 The attention of the Persians to Sahak’s speech; the attitude of the Jews before the giving of the commandments (De Decalogo). I 31

Of a more elaborate nature are the following: Fables Moses takes a Pythagorean saying from the Quaestiones in Genesin (I 17) and attributes it to Plato. II 42 The elaborate description of Eruandakert as a girl’s 65. For the Armenian Philo see Zarp'analean, Matenadaran, pp. 735-48. Lewy, Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, pp. 1-24, is helpful on wider aspects of the Armenian Philo, not merely the De Jona.

31

Introduction

face is based on the description of Samson’s face in the In Sampsonem. Ill 29 A gnomic expression comes from Philo’s De Allegoria. Ill 46 The death of Arshak is based on the fate of Phayllus, one of the robbers of the Delphic temple, in the De Providentia. Ill 62, 65 There are several borrowings here from the description of Alexandria in the De Animalibus, De Decalogo. Ill 65 A proverb from the Quaestiones in Exodum (II 43). Ill 68 Most astonishing of all is the attribution to Moses’ erudition of the characteristics of the rational Logos (from the Quaestiones in Exodum, II 90). A similar parallel is drawn in the same chapter concerning Mesrop; Moses uses the same words of Mesrop’s guiding his pupils as Philo does of reason control­ ling the passions (cf. Quaestiones in Exodum II i*5)Finally, the rhetorical description of intellectual activity in the very first chapter of Moses’ History is based on Philo, notably on the Quaestiones in Genesin, I 12. Moses and Christian writers

In view of the general Christian character of Armenian literature, and the earlier writers in particular,60 it is naturally to Christian authors—foreign and native—that Moses is primarily indebted. He was familiar with the Armenian versions rather than with the original texts of the Greek authors. Eusebius

Of the Greek Christian writers the historian Eusebius of Caesarea had by far the greatest influence on Armenian historiog­ raphy. His Ecclesiastical History was translated (from the Syriac version) in the earliest period of Armenian literacy; Moses attrib­ utes the initiative of this translation to Mesrop himself, but there is no corroborative evidence.07 Eusebius’ theme of God’s provi­ dence active in historical events was echoed by most Armenian historians, though Moses himself does not draw such elaborate 66. Cf. Thomson, SP 1975. 67. See II to at n. 8.

32

Introduction

moral lessons from the operation of God’s providence as do some other Armenian writers. The exact date of the translation into Armenian of Eusebius’ Chronicle is not clear.68 The preface to Lazar’s History shows knowledge of the Armenian version, but the original text of Lazar (who wrote at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries) suffered later revision.69 The Armenian version of the Chronicle was widely plagiarized by Moses, and later Ar­ menian historians refer to the Chronicle explicitly.70 The text was significant for Moses and not only for historical information; it also provided him with arguments concerning the nature of historical writing and the importance of accurate chronology. Moses’ debt to Eusebius, however, cannot be measured by the sole explicit reference he makes to the Ecclesiastical History. He frequently refers to named sources Eusebius quoted as if he was familiar with the originals. And as with Josephus, for exam­ ple, Moses takes numerous themes from Eusebius, which he embroiders to bring Armenia into the mainstream of world his­ tory—in this case, the history of the Christian church. Moses’ reliance on Eusebius can be broken down into four categories: precise information about ancient, Roman, or church history; the use of sources from Eusebius as if Moses knew the original; quotations taken out of context and used in a literary fashion to add color to the narrative; and pure fantasy, or, more precisely, the tendentious use of his source to boost the supposed historical fortunes of Armenia. Not surprisingly Moses uses the Chronicle extensively for historical information. Some examples are: I2 I3 I5 I6 I7 I8 I io

I 17

The description of Berossus. The list of peoples with written histories. The names for Ham’s descendants; Metsrayim as Egypt. Xisuthra lands in Armenia. The Egyptian gods; Hephaistos. The Parthian rebellion against the Macedonians. The tyranny of Bel (but here Armenian traditions also play a part; see the appendix). Zoroaster as king and magus of the Bactrians; in referring to Ninos’ death Moses has a different ver­ sion against “as is said” (that is, in Eusebius).

68. See Eusebius: Karst, Chronik, pp. xxxiv-xxxviii. 6g. See Sanspeur, REA 1973-1974. 70. See reference in note 68 above.

33

Introduction

Lists of names of Hebrews and Chaldaeans from Eusebius. I 21 The history of Sardanapolos and Varbakes. I 22 The list of Medes. I 23 The reference to Ardamozan added to the biblical account of Senekerim’s sons. II 1 The history of the Macedonians and Parthians after Alexander. II 2 The etymology of Siripindes. II 8 The description of Nebuchadnezzar—a misinter­ pretation based on the Armenian version of the Chronicle. II 13 The history of Chroesus of Lydia and Cyrus, the Persian king. II 26 Abgar’s title; Augustus makes Archelaus ethnarch. II 27 Germanicus’ triumph. II 64 The name of Antoninus Pius; Lucius’ temple. II 68 The revolt of the Parthians against the Macedoni­ ans. II 73 The succession of Roman emperors. II 76 Deaths of the emperors Tacitus and Florian. II 82 Definition of “chronology.” Ill 17 The fate of Midas.

I 19

Example of information taken from Eusebius’ Chronicle and used to add color to Moses’ narrative are the references to the games in II 79 and III 40. Moses’ use of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (EH) is some­ what more complex. Instead of a straightforward use of a his­ torical source for background information or to add a pictur­ esque detail, Moses instead intertwines fact and fiction.

Eusebius bears witness that in the Edessene archives are to be found all the acts of the early Armenian kings; these had been transferred from Nisibis and Sinope. This is entirely Moses’ own invention based on the reference in EH I 13 to the archives in Edessa from which Eusebius claims to have taken the story of Abgar’s correspondence with Jesus. Since Moses has made Abgar an Armenian king, it was not diffi­ cult for him to push the fraud a little further and claim that the archives contained Armenian material. II 24 Abgar’s father was Arsham, an Armenian king. Moses has added a nonexistent character to the stage

II 10

34

Introduction

of history, transforming the Syrian Abgar’s nickname Ukama (“black”) via the Armenian translation Arjn to Arsham. The fictitious Arsham is then described as King Tigran’s nephew; his reign coincided with that of Herod, for which Moses has adapted Josephus. II 26ff. The importance of Abgar is that it was in his city of Edessa that Addai/Thaddaeus first preached the Gospel. Moses was familiar with the basic story in Eusebius and the elaborations of the Armenian ver­ sion of the Doctrine of Addai attributed to Labubna. When using material common to both Eusebius and Labubna, Moses generally follows the Armenian ver­ sion of Eusebius; see especially II 30 n. 5, 31 n. 1, 32 n. 2, 33n. 3. II 29 Moses’ account of John the Baptist’s death and the war between Herod and Aretas (Aretas’ daughter had been Herod’s first wife whom he repudiated in favor of Herodias) is from EH Iio. Moses adds the gratui­ tous information that “the brave Armenians” helped defeat Herod. II 35 The account of Helen of Adiabene is taken from the Armenian version of EH II 12, not from Josephus directly as Moses claims. But as part of Moses’ “Armenianizing” of history, he makes Helen the chief of Abgar’s wives! II 60 Moses has taken his account of Bar Kochba’s revolt from EH VI 6. Eusebius quotes Ariston, so Moses pretends to be following Ariston’s account directly— as with Josephus in II 35. II 66 Moses’ sketch of Bardaisan is also taken from EH IV 26. But here again Moses gratuitously introduces Armenia, claiming that Bardaisan visited Ani and translated the temple history into Syriac. This “tem­ ple history” is one of Moses’ imaginary written sources for Armenian tradition. See further II 48 for “Olympius,” the supposed author of the “history.” II 75 Here also Moses invents a “history”; this time he attributes it to Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, of whom he knew from the Armenian version of EH VI 27. Firmilian died soon after 268, but Moses claims that his history mentions the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria in the ninth year of (Diocletian’s) perse­ cution (311). Peter’s death was known to Moses from 35

Introduction EH VII 32; his references to the persecutions of Maximian (read Maximin) and Decius come from the same source. Socrates

The only other non-Armenian historian to whom Moses was greatly indebted is the early fifth-century Socrates. His Ecclesias­ tical History was translated into Armenian in 696/7, and to it was attached the legendary Acts of Silvester—itself translated into Armenian in 678.71 A shorter version of Socrates was later excerpted from the Armenian text, but opinion is divided as to whether the Shorter Recension (SR) of Socrates shows knowledge of Moses Khorenats'i or vice versa. Movsesean, editor of the two recensions, holds that the Armenian reviser of Socrates was famil­ iar with Moses and borrowed extracts from the latter’s History. Akinean, on the other hand, explains the parallels between Moses and the SR of Socrates by holding that Moses was acquainted with both the longer and the shorter recensions.72 It seems more likely that the minor parallels between Moses and the SR of Socrates are due to Moses rather than the reviser of the Long Recension (LR) who would occasionally look up what Moses had said on a certain topic and then copy him instead of the LR. This is especially true where the verbal parallels do not refer to the same episode (for example, I 13 at note 5). The only Socrates to whom Moses refers by name is the Athenian philosopher (II 92)The important feature to stress here is that Moses was familiar with at least the LR of Socrates and with the Acts of Silvester. Not only did he use these works as unacknowledged sources, he also indulged in his usual habit of adapting the in­ formation he found there ad maiorem gloriam Armeniae.

II 83

Moses (wrongly) claims that Constantine married Diocletian’s daughter and then gives an account of his victories with the divine emblem, his persecu­ tion of the church—for which he was afflicted with leprosy—and his conversion and baptism by Silves­ ter, bishop of Rome. These episodes are based on the Armenian version of the Acts of Silvester. The

71. See the introduction to Ter Movsesean’s edition of the Armenian text. 72. Akinean, HA 1948.

36

Introduction

Armenians are neatly introduced into this romance by the suggestion that when Constantine was seek­ ing a cure for his leprosy, he asked King Trdat to send magicians from Persia and India. Here the LR refers merely to Persian doctors, but the SR says that neither Persian nor Armenian doctors could cure Constantine. II 86 Moses gives an account of the conversion of Georgia through the efforts of Nune. This is based on Soc­ rates I 20, though Socrates does not name the captive Christian woman who converted the king’s wife. Here is a particularly clear case of Moses’ tenden­ tiousness. The amendments to his story are all designed to show the preeminence of Armenia: Mihran, prince of Georgia, is made a subject of Trdat (II 85); Nune is made a companion of Rhipsime—the nun martyred by Trdat before his own conversion—who had fled to Georgia; after Mihran’s conversion, when Nune asks Gregory in Arme­ nia what to do next, he tells her to destroy the idols and to set up crosses (as he had done in Armenia; cf. Agathangelos §§769, 770, 782); and Moses suggests that “Agathangelos informs us” about Nune’s preaching; although the reference is only to the regions evangelized by Gregory (A a §842).73 II 89-90 Moses’ account of Arianism is based on the Ar­ menian Socrates (I 6, 8). The reference to Constan­ tine deporting the Arians “to the mines” is paral­ leled only in the SR. Ill 33 The death of Valens is based on Socrates IV 38; here also the verbal parallels in Armenian are closer to the SR than to the LR. Ill 52 The reference to portents in Constantinople after the exile of John Chrysostom is based on Socrates VI 18, 23. Ill 54 A brief phrase mentioning Arcadius’ death is from Socrates, LR to VII 1. Ill 57 A brief phrase describing John Chrysostom (“foun­ tain of the church”) is paralleled in SR to VI 14, 19. There are also patristic parallels for this phrase. Ill 67 Two sentences from the eulogy of Saint Silvester in 73. Aa refers to the Armenian text of Agathangelos.

37

Introduction

the Armenian version of the legendary Acts of Sil­ vester are applied by Moses to Mesrop. There are also several occasions where Socrates’ Church History may have served Moses as a source, but where there are no direct verbal borrowings.74 Gregory Nazianzenus

Another Greek source Moses borrows from extensively is Gregory Nazianzenus, “the theologian,” whose orations were well known in Armenia.75 Moses never quotes Gregory by name and only refers directly to his father (II 89). But with Gregory in mind he cites “one of the ancients” (II 92), “one of the fathers,” or “someone” (III 68) as the source of an appropriate remark or proverb; and on another occasion he quotes the Bible, following the Greek text of Gregory in its Armenian translation against the Armenian vulgate (II 83). There are also numerous verbal parallels between Moses and Gregory that do not reflect any common situation.76 More important are the occasions when Moses uses Gregory as a direct historical source or when he appropriates suitable phrases for literary effect. Examples of Gregory’s being used for a historical source are: Details of the death of Arius (In laudem magni Athanasii). Ill 13, 17 Details of Julian’s persecutions and death (Invectiva adv. Julianum).

II 89

Examples of literary borrowings from Gregory are: The description of Gregory the Illuminator’s sons (In laudem Basilii magni). II 91 The description of Gregory the Illuminator’s last days (A d patrem). Ill 37 The description of battle standards (Invectiva adv. Julianum ). Ill 65 The description of Sahak’s oration at the Persian court (In laudem Basilii magni); the description of Samuel as antipatriarch (In laudem Athanasii).

II 80

74. See II 88 n. 2; III 13 n. 2, 17 n. 2, 29 n. 3, 30 n. 1, 33 n. 4, 61 n. 1. 75. See in general Zarp'analean, Matenadaran, pp. 346-58; Liidtke, OC 1913, p. 264; Sinko, De traditione. 76- See I 4 n. 14, 6 n. 8; Fables n. 4; II 10 n. 6, 38 n. 1, 63 n. 3; III 13 n. 3, 61 n. 11, 62 notes passim.

38

Introduction

III 67

The eulogies of Sahak and Mesrop (from various orations).

Most interesting of all is the description of himself as an “old and sick man” (II 65), taken from the funeral oration on Saint Basil. Since the identity of the author of this History is a complete enigma, we have no means of corroborating this re­ mark. It is perhaps unwise to assume (with the generality of scholars in Armenia) that Moses is being more candid here than elsewhere. Labubna

The impact of Syriac texts on Armenian literature was stronger in the more strictly theological rather than the historical fields—for example, hymnography, homiletics, and biblical ex­ egesis. Hence, their influence on Moses is less easily discernible. On the other hand, in the hagiographical Agathangelos, for example, ideas and traditions of Syrian origin play an important role.77 There is only one Syriac source of importance for Moses that purports to be a historical (in this case, legendary) work: the Teaching of the Apostle Addai. It had been translated into Armenian in the fifth century, receiving some tendentious altera­ tions in the process even before Moses adapted it.78 This work is an elaboration of the Abgar story found in Eusebius’ Ecclesias­ tical History (I 13), itself known to Moses from the Armenian Eusebius. The kernel of the story is the correspondence between Abgar, king of Edessa, and Jesus and the subsequent conversion of Abgar to Christianity worked by the apostle Thaddaeus,79 one of the seventy-two. What began in Syriac as a defense of the apostolic origin of Christianity in Edessa was then adopted by the Armenians, for the Armenian version of the story (known as Labubna") has Thaddaeus leave Edessa to evangelize “the East.”80 77. See references to Aphrahat and Ephrem in the index of Thomson, Teaching, and Thomson, Agathangelos, p. xliv. 78. For the Syriac text see the bibliography s.v. Teaching of the Apostle Addai, and for the Armenian text, s.v. Labubna. 79. Eusebius calls him QaSSaios; the Syriac translation has hdy (Ms. A) or tdy (Ms. B); the Armenian Eusebius has T‘adeos. The Syriac Teaching of the Apostle Addai callshim ’dy; the Armenian adaptation (“Labubna”) Ade; Moses has the form T'adeos, Adde being reserved for the Aggai of the Syriac. In Labubna, Ade is used for both Thaddaeus and Aggai. 80. Labubna, p. 43.

39

Introduction

In Armenian tradition (as early as Faustos), Thaddaeus had become not merely the earliest Christian missionary in Armenia but a martyr put to death by King Sanatruk.81 Moses’ additions to the story revolve around greater Arme­ nian participation in the affairs of Edessa. Not only has Abgar been made an Armenian king (II 26) and Edessa the Armenian capital (II 27), but numerous Syrian notables mentioned in the Teaching of Addai, and hence in the Armenian version, have been turned into eminent Armenian princes (II 29-30). The most significant such adoption is that of the Jew Tobias—in whose house Thaddaeus is said to have resided—as a Bagratid prince who had fled Armenian persecution. His conversion to Christianity (II 33)82 makes him the first Armenian Christian— an important aspect of Moses’ enhancement of the position of the Bagratids. Furthermore, Moses claims that Labubna placed in the Edessan archives (that is, Armenian archives; II 27), an account not only of the story of Thaddaeus but of events in Sanatruk’s days (II 36). Here again is a patently fraudulent claim by Moses to be basing his narrative on genuine archival sources. Labubna has also furnished Moses with a few other useful pieces of information not directly concerned with Thaddaeus, notably the names of the pagan deities worshipped in Armavir (II 8) and those of Nisibis (II 27) later transferred to Edessa. Moses and earlier Armenian historians

It is clear that Moses Khorenats'i was a writer of consider­ able erudition. Although most of his demonstrable sources were available in Armenian, he had read widely in history, theology, philosophy, and rhetoric. With an ear for a telling turn of phrase, Moses was able to draw on his vast store of literary sources for rhetorical effect. He also adapted both small details and whole stories from non-Armenian writings, not merely enlivening his narrative but recasting the Armenian past in the mold of his own making. When we turn to Moses’ use of native Armenian writers it is this second aspect of his approach to historical writing that needs 81. On this development see Van Esbroeck, REA 1972. 82. At the time of the conversion of King Abgar and the populace of Edessa.

40

Introduction further elucidation. The main question will not be whether Moses acknowledges his sources (which he usually does not), but what changes he has introduced into the stories he uses. Agathangelos

One of the texts Moses uses is the story of the conversion of Armenia and its background as found in the History of Agath­ angelos.83 In II 67 Moses mentions Agathangelos by name and gives a resume of his account of the reason for the murder of Trdat’s father Khosrov. The title that Moses gives to Agath­ angelos—“archivist”—is Moses’ own, based on the claims in this hagiographical work (prologue and epilogue). In II 74 Moses says that “Agathangelos informs us of the rest of the story” (about events after Anak’s death). In II 79 he writes that Agathangelos has a brief account of Constantine’s victory over the tyrants and in II 86 that Agathangelos informs us of Nune’s missionary endeavors in Georgia. Our confidence is shaken by two factors, however. In II 67 Moses claims that he will give a complete and true account in full detail of what Agathangelos had described in brief. The references to Agathangelos by name that then follow are ex­ tremely ambiguous; with the exception of that in II 86, they all can be taken in a narrow sense as referring to material in the Armenian Agathangelos. But Moses clearly expects his readers to assume that Agathangelos was the authority for much of his own elaborations. More telling is the claim in II 86 that Agathangelos describes Nune’s missionary activity, for Moses has lifted his description of the areas evangelized by Nune from Agathangelos’ account of Gregory’s work, which in turn had been borrowed from Koriun’s description of Mashtots" missionary travels (Aa §843)“ The major variations that occur between Agathangelos and Moses’ History are in their description of Trdat’s career, Greg­ ory’s origins, and the conversion of Armenia. Moses’ elaborations are the following, although it is not always clear whether he is personally responsible for them or whether he is merely the first witness to traditions already in circulation. 83. Here we are concerned with the known Armenian text of Agathangelos-^a. 84. For a study of Agathangelos’ sources and his use of Koriun, see Thomson, Agathangelos, pp. Ixxxviii-lxxxix.

41

Introduction II 72

II 73

II 74 II 75

II 77 II 78

II 79 II 80

II 82

II 85

II 89 II 91 II 92

Emperor Philip orders troops to be sent to help Khosrov in his campaign against the Sasanian Artashir, who has just overthrown the Arsacids (cf. Aa §20). Despite later Roman lack of support, Khosrov pur­ sued Artashir as far as India (cf. Aa §§21-3). Gregory is conceived over the grave of Thaddaeus, whose spiritual labors he was to complete. Moses invents a history attributed to Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, which describes martyrdoms in Armenia in the time of Khosrov. Moses also claims that Greek archives are his source for the reign of Trdat (Agathangelos?) and later. Artashir encourages fire worship in subjected Ar­ menia and destroys the statues in Artashat. Artashir destroys the Mandakuni family—read Mamikonean, the earlier leading princely family be­ fore the Bagratids. Trdat’s prowess at the games and his escape from Carus’ defeat are elaborated (cf. Aa § §42-7, 202). The foster parents of Gregory the Illuminator are introduced; his marriage to Mariam is described— as opposed to the Julitta of the Vs5 tradition in the Agathangelos cycle. A pricise date is given for Trdat’s restoration, and Diocletian is named as his supporter (cf. Aa §46). Trdat’s war in Caucasian Albania against the Basilk' is described, though here Josephus provides the main anecdote. Also Moses says that Trdat waged war against Shapuh (240-272), son of Artashir, whereas Trdat became king in 287. Constantine summons Trdat and Gregory to Nicaea; they refuse for various reasons and send Aristakes in their stead (cf. Aa §884). The date of Gregory’s consecration is given and the length of his pontificate. Gregory’s death in the Cave of Mane and the discovery of his relics are described. Trdat becomes a hermit; he is poisoned.

There are also numerous occasions when the text of Agathangelos has provided Moses with an expressive phrase: 85. For the V tradition see below, p. 43.

42

Introduction

Semiramis’ passion for Ara is described in similar terms to that of Diocletian for Rhipsime (Aa §140). I 24 Tigran is the bearer of peace and prosperity as are the pagan gods (A a §128). I 31 Vahagn fights dragons; Vahagn as vishapakal (Aa §809). II 12 Moses knowledge of the Armenian pagan deities’ Greek names comes from Agathangelos (see also II 14, 48, 53, 60, 66). II 48 A magus interprets dreams (erazahan); the same epithet is applied to the god Tir in Aa §778. II 53 Zareh’s muddy prison; Gregory’s muddy pit (Aa §124)II 56 Artashes’ boundary markers; those of Artashir (Aa §36)II 89 The miracle at the baptism of Gregory, father of Gregory Nazianzenus, and that at the baptism of Trdat (Aa §833). Ill 31 Khad’s hair shirt; that of Vrt'anes (Aa §859; itself based on the description of Mashtots' in Koriun). Ill 48 Khosrov’s self-applied title, used in A a § 17 of Trdat.

I 15

There remains the further question of whether Moses was also acquainted with a text of Agathangelos that differs from the Armenian as we now have it. For there are versions in Greek and Arabic of the life of Gregory and of the conversion of Armenia that derive from an Armenian text now lost. This is conveniently known as the V cycle of Agathangelos, as opposed to the A cycle—the known Armenian recension and its deriva­ tives in Greek (Ag) and Arabic.86 The origin and development of the two different recensions is still obscure. But so far as the present investigation of Moses’ sources is concerned we can concentrate on the points made recently by Ter-Levondyan.87 He claims that details preserved in Moses can help us reconstruct the lost Armenian prototype of the V recension, now only attested by the translations in Greek (Vg and Vo) and Arabic (Va). There are five main points: the story of Constantine’s victories, con­ version, and friendship with Trdat of Armenia; the story of the conversion of Georgia and the relationship between the early Christian Armenia and Georgia; the story of Gregory’s early life 86. For details of the various recensions, see Van Esbroeck, REA J 971, pp. 14-9; Thomson, Agathangelos, pp. xxi-xxiii. 87. Ter-Levondyan, PBH 1973, J975-

43

Introduction

and marriage; the story of Gregory’s conception and the connec­ tion with Thaddaeus; and the account of Gregory’s burial. There is one important assumption in Ter-Levondyan’s argument—that Moses was a fifth-century writer. If Moses is writing in the fifth century, and he knows of events described in the V cycle of Agathangelos, which are neither in the A cycle nor attested in other fifth-century Armenian writers, then he is in­ deed an important witness. On the other hand, if Moses is writing much later and the stories he ascribes (sometimes obscurely) to “Agathangelos” could be found in other texts available in Ar­ menia, then Moses’ information has no independent value as a witness to the V recension. Moses has taken his information about Constantine’s mother and wife from the Armenian version of the Acts of Silvester, which was translated in the late sixth century. His account of Constantine’s victories is less detailed than that in the Armenian Agathangelos. But A a does not mention the story of Constantine’s baptism at the hands of Silvester or the sending of Helen to Jerusalem to find the true cross. However, in II 83 Moses’ account of Constantine’s baptism is verbally dependent on the Acts of Silvester; he could not have elaborated on Vg §176 or Va §169 and by chance have hit on the same phraseology as the Armenian translation of this legend. In II 87 Moses refers to Helen’s dis­ covery of the cross with five nails and to Juda, later bishop of Jerusalem. Juda is not mentioned in the V cycle of Agathangelos. In the Armenian Labubna Juda is mentioned—but there it is Patronice, not Helen, who finds the cross. Moses probably took his references to Helen, the honorable cross, and the nails (not mentioned in the V cycle) from the Armenian Socrates (I 17); combining this information with Juda from Labubna, he comes up with his own idosyncratic account. Moses would have known from Koriun that Georgia and Al­ bania were converted to Christianity before the time of Mashtots'. There is no mention of the conversion of Georgia in the Arme­ nian Agathangelos, where the account of Gregory’s missionary activity in the Caucasus is generally based on Koriun’s descrip­ tion of Mashtots" work. However, Vg §160 refers to Gregory’s sending of bishops to the Laz and to Albania, and Va § 158 refers to Irenarchus as metropolitan of Georgia sent there to create bishops for the whole country. But this is not the source of Moses’ story about Nune, which is modeled on the story of the captive woman in the Armenian Socrates, I 20 (itself based on Rufinus). Moses elaborated on Socrates with parallels from the 44

Introduction account of Gregory’s activity in Armenia as described in Aa.ss Again, he has given a personal, tendentious, and composite story. Moses’ account of Gregory’s upbringing and marriage is entirely idiosyncratic: his rescue by Sophy, Euthalius, and Burdar and his marriage to Mariam, daughter of David, are un­ attested by writers before Moses and are undoubtedly the product of Moses’ own imagination. That Gregory was the son of Anak and that he was married and had two sons are facts known to both recensions of Agathangelos. In Eg §§93-7, however, it is said that Gregory’s wife had been with him in Armenia and had returned to Caesarea with the children when Gregory was arrested by Trdat; she later came back to Armenia without the children when Gregory had been released from prison. Her name was Julitta. Moses knows nothing of Julitta or her travels. What he tells us is no guide to the contents of the (lost) Armenian arche­ type of the V cycle of Agathangelos. Ter-Levondyan stresses the references in Moses, II 74, to Gregory’s conception over the tomb of Thaddaeus. The only witness in the V cycle to this story is the Karshuni version (Vk) §8 (written about 600). But the Karshuni text does not draw out the significance of this coincidence. Only in Stephen of Siunik', writing about 718, is there a close parallel—both in verbal detail and in the conclusion drawn—to Moses’ account.89 But there is no evidence that would push this tendentious story back to the fifth century. In II 91 Moses describes Gregory’s last days (often in terms borrowed from the Armenian Agathangelos), his retirement to the Cave of Mane, the discovery of his relics by Garnik, and their burial in T'ordan. But it is only the Karshuni version of Agath­ angelos that refers to Mane and Garnik and to Gregory’s death and the later burial of his relics. Although Faustos (III 12) knows that Gregory was buried at T‘ordan and although Lazar (p. 55, 176) refers to his relics, Van Esbroeck has shown that this story of the invention and cult of Gregory’s relics does not predate the sixth century.90 Nowhere, then, does Moses Khorenats'i give reli­ able information about the earliest Armenian traditions that lie behind the Greek and Arabic versions of the V recension of Agathangelos. 88. See II 86 nn. 5, 6, 10, 13. 8g. Girk‘ T‘lt‘ots‘, p. 323. 90. Details in Van Esbroeck, REA 1971.

45

Introduction Faustos

For the history of Armenia after the deaths of Trdat and Gregory to the division of the country between the Byzantine and Sasanian empires (in 387),91 Moses’ only Armenian source is Faustos Buzandats'i. He is never mentioned by name, and Moses’ tendentiousness is patent. Faustos naturally describes the leading role played by the Mamikonean family, the pre­ eminent noble family of fourth-century Armenia. But Moses deliberately has a Bagratid prince play the major part in the battle of Dzirav and the death of the traitor Merujan (III 37), just as he changes Mamikonean to Mandakuni (II 76). Moses has taken many other liberties with Faustos’ narrative. On three occasions Faustos probably served as a literary source but the historical situation is different:

II 12 II 41

II 60

The numbering of an army by each soldier leaving a stone to form a cairn (cf. Faustos, III 7). The construction of a hunting preserve (cf. Faustos, III 8). The description of professional female mourners (cf. Faustos, IV 15).

Far more significant are the differences between Moses and Faustos in their descriptions of historical events. It is difficult to tell whether these differences originate with Moses himself or whether he is the earliest witness to traditions at variance with Faustos’ History.

II 91 The details of Aristakes death (cf. Faustos, III 2). Ill 3-6 A different account of the revolt of Sanatruk (cf. Faustos, III 7). Ill 7 Elaborations on the story of Jacob of Nisibis (cf. Faustos, III 10). Ill 9-10 A different account of various wars (cf. Faustos, III 8, 11). Ill 11 A different account of Tiran’s accession (cf. Faustos, III 12). Ill 14 A different account of Yusik’s martyrdom; the story of Julian’s image (cf. Faustos, III 12). Ill 16 Additions to the account of Nerses’ education (cf. Faustos, IV 3). 91. For this division, see III 42 n. 1.

46

Introduction III 17 III 20 III 21

III 22 HI 23

in 25 III 26 III 29 III 3°

III 33 III 35

III 36 III 37

III 39 III 40 III 42

The addition of a letter from Shapuh to Tiran (cf. Faustos, III 20). The addition of laity to the council (cf. Faustos, IV 4/՜ Moses has Nerses make two embassies to Constanti­ nople (cf. Faustos, IV 5). Additions to Tirif’s speech of calumny (cf. Faustos, IV 15). A different account of Gnel’s death (cf. Faustos, IV 15)A different account of Arshak’s campaign (cf. Faus­ tos, IV 20). A different occasion for the capture of Tigranakert by Shapuh (cf. Faustos, IV 20, 24). A different story involving Arshak, the Georgians, and the appeal to Nerses; the addition of Arshak’s letter to Valens (cf. Faustos, IV 5). The association of Macedonius and Nerses’ exile wrongly set in the time of Valens, Macedonius hav­ ing been deposed in 360 (cf. Faustos, IV 6). The presence of Nerses in Constantinople for the council of 381 (cf. Faustos, IV 13). Elaborations to the account of Jewish colonies (cf. Faustos, IV 55). Elaborations to the account of Shapuhs’ persecution (cf. Faustos, IV 58); a different account of Pap’s early reign (cf. Faustos, V 1). The combination of two battle accounts (cf. Faustos, V 4, 5). A different account of Pap’s death (cf. Faustos, V 32). The elaboration of Varazdat’s prowess; a different account of his exile (cf. Faustos, V 35). A different account of the division of Armenia and the installation of Khosrov (cf. Faustos, V 1).

KoRIUN

One of Moses’ main claims is that he was a disciple of Mesrop, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, who had sent him to Alexandria to study (II 61). In these circumstances Moses could hardly refrain from mentioning the names of other (actual) pupils of Mesrop’s known to him from Koriun’s biography of the 47

Introduction master or from Lazar’s History (see III 60). But it is noteworthy that Moses refers to Koriun only once—suggesting that he went to Constantinople out of jealousy (III 60)—whereas Koriun is in fact his main source for the life and activity of Mesrop. Moses, however, consistently negates the role of the Mamikonean family and hence omits all reference to the authors who describe that family’s importance. Moses was even more indebted to Faustos and Lazar than to Koriun, but their works and names he never mentions. As with other sources, Moses embroiders his borrowings from Koriun with additions of his own devising. The first addi­ tion is the statement that Mesrop was raised and educated under Nerses the Great. Since it was a typical concern of Moses to enhance the origins of his heroes and since Nerses was a great­ great-grandson of Gregory the Illuminator (III 49), this pres­ tigious connection could but boost Moses’ own standing as Mesrop’s pupil.92 Then the circumstances surrounding the inven­ tion of the Armenian script receive some elaboration. We are informed that the Armenian king Vramshapuh was sent on business to Mesopotamia by the Iranian shah. There he realized his need for a scribe trained in the Persian language. In partial compensation he was promised an adaptation of a foreign script for Armenian that had been composed by a certain Bishop Daniel (III 52). But all earlier Armenian sources speak merely of King Vramshapuh’s hearing in Armenia of an Aramaic script adapted for Armenian by Daniel. Moses concurs with earlier wit­ nesses in describing the inadequacy of this script for Armenian. It was soon abandoned. Moses also claims that Mesrop himself visited Daniel and then met the pagan Edessan archivist Plato; the latter put him on the track of the Christian Epiphanius, now dead, who had a disciple Rufinus (III 53). It was with Rufinus, as Koriun also states, that Mesrop finally was able to compose a native Armenian alphabet. In contrast to earlier sources, Moses then claims that Mesrop himself made the first translation of the Bible, ascribing unspecified translations from Syriac to Sahak (III 54).93 The activity of Mesrop in Byzantine Armenia is elabo­ rated by Moses with the invention of correspondence between 92. This connection is elaborated in the later Life of Nerses. 93. For the general question of the invention of the Armenian script and early translations, see Acharean, Hayots‘ Grere, and vol. 7 of BM (which celebrates the sixteen hundredth anniversary of Mesrop’s birth).

48

Introduction

the Armenian patriarch Sahak and the Byzantine emperor, patri­ arch, and general (III 57, $8).94 Another curious addition of Moses to Armenian ecclesias­ tical history is the assertion that Cyril of Alexandria had joined Proclus of Constantinople and Acacius of Melitene in warning the Armenians against the dangerous heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The correspondence between Proclus, Acacius, and the Armenians is extant95 and was of great importance in crystal­ lizing Armenian theological reaction to the council of Ephesus,96 at which Armenia was not formally represented (III 61). But the addition of Cyril, a theologian whose works were later very influ­ ential in Armenia,97 is not merely a tendentious anachronism. It lends further credence to Moses’ claim that Mesrop and Sahak sent him to Alexandria. Less significant are the elaborations concerning Mesrop’s funeral (III 67): the argument over his burial place, the move­ ment of the luminous cross (mentioned by Koriun merely as static over the place where Mesrop died), and the baptism of the unbelievers awed by this sign. Lazar

Moses claims to have been a protege of Mesrop and Sahak’s and a young man at the time of their death but an old man at the time of writing his History (III 68, 65). However, he never gives himself a precise age nor does he ascribe the composition of his History to any specific date. Moses hopes his readers will assume that it was written in the later fifth century. So it is not surprising that he does not mention by name one of his major sources, which was not composed until about 500, the History of Lazar P‘arpets‘i. (Here too Moses’ anti-Mamikonean bias plays a role, 94. If Moses was well read in theology, he was somewhat ignorant of theological quarrels in Byzantium. The enthusiastic reference to John Chrysostom comes as a surprise in the mouth of Atticus; see Thomson, Teaching, p. 34, and cf. Ill 57 at n. 16. 95. In the Girk‘ T‘lt‘ots‘. See Tallon, Livre des lettres, and Richard, “Acace de Melitene.” 96. For the Armenian reaction to the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, see Sarkissian, Council of Chalcedon. 97. Note, for example, the frequency of quotations from Cyril in Armenian catenae, the Knik' Hawatoy and the Hawatarmat (for the latter, see Thomson, REA 1968), as well as in the Armenian version of Timothy Aelurus.

49

Introduction for this History was dedicated to the leading Armenian Mamikonean prince of the time, Vahan.) Lazar’s work takes the history of Armenia from where Faustos ends—the division of Armenia in 387 into two spheres of influence, the smaller one Byzantine, the larger one Sasanian—to the appointment of Vahan Mamikonean as governor (marzpan) of eastern Armenia by the Sasa­ nian Shah Valarsh in 485. It served Moses as a prime source for the troubled relations between the last Arsacid kings of Armenia and their Iranian overlords, until the abolition of the Armenian monarchy in 428, and for the attempts of the Iranian shah to impose Syrian patriarchs on the Armenian church. Some of Moses’ literary borrowings are: Moses’ description of the scenic charms of Ayrarat has close parallels with the lament of Arshak on leaving his homeland, Ayrarat (Lazar, pp. 9-10). II 46 The simile of an eagle attacking flocks of partridges is used by Moses, Lazar (p. 156), and Sebeos (p. 50). But direct dependence on Lazar by Moses is not demonstrable here. Ill 59 Moses’ description of the province of Karin is again based on that by Lazar of Ayrarat (pp. 9-10).

I 16

(As Sanspeur has noted recently, the text of Lazar represented by the printed editions shows signs of being a revised and not the original redaction.98 But in view of the elaborateness of Lazar’s scenic description compared to Moses’ few comments, there is almost no likelihood of a later reviser of Lazar being dependent on Moses.) The influence of Lazar as a historical source on Moses begins at III 47, with the division of Armenia and Mesrop’s realization of the need for an Armenian script. Moses’ principal variations from Lazar are: The correspondence between Khosrov and the Ar­ menian princes who had gone to the western sector and now wish to return. Ill 49 Emperor Arcadius gives over to Khosrov the west­ ern sector of Armenia (a complete fabrication). Ill 50 Moses’ account of Khosrov’s disgrace vis-a-vis the Iranian shah is quite different from Lazar’s (p. 12).

III 48

98. Sanspeur, REA 1973-1974. 50

Introduction III 51

Ill 55’

Ill 57

Ill 64

Ill 65

Ill 66

Moses continues the fiction that the king of eastern Armenia also controlled western Armenia, for which, says Moses, he paid tribute to Emperor Arcadius. 5$ The reign of Shapuh, the Iranian shah’s son, in Armenia is not mentioned in Lazar, nor is the con­ fusion that followed on Shapuh’s death. The activity of Sahak in western Armenia is not attested by Lazar or Koriun. Lazar says nothing of the imprisonment of Artashir, the last Arsacid king of Armenia, or of the confisca­ tion of his family’s possessions. Moses identifies the deposed patriarch Surmak with Surmak of Bznunik', who is attested in Lazar (p. 44) and Elishe (p. 28). Lazar says nothing of a division of opinion among the Armenian nobility concerning the reappoint­ ment of Sahak to the patriarchate, of the division of functions between him and Samuel, or of Sahak’s elaborate speech before Vram. Moses elaborates on Lazar’s brief reference to Sam­ uel’s avarice (p. 26). Lazar does not state that Mesrop was established by Sahak in the cathedral at Valarshapat (though he died in the palace there).

The Ashkharhats'oyts'

Among the Armenian works Moses used is the geographical text known as the Ashkharhats1 oyts‘. From the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries it was widely ascribed to Moses himself, but more critical scholarship now generally views it as a product of the seventh century. Arguments pro and con have been ad­ vanced linking it with Anania of Shirak, the most famous scholar of the period, who wrote on astronomy, mathematics, geography, and other scientific subjects." For our purposes it is sufficient to note that the original version of it was written after the mid­ sixth century—for Justinian’s reorganization of the eastern By­ zantine provinces into four Armenias is known to its author—but probably before the second half of the seventh century because there is no mention of the Arab expansion and reference is made to the three Arabias (deserta, felix, and Petraea). Admittedly the 99. See Hewsen, REA 1965; Abrahamyan, Ashkharhats‘uyls‘; Eremyan, Hayastane.

51

Introduction omission of later events could have been deliberate on the part of the author. The original version of the Ashkharhats' oyts' remains a matter of dispute however. Not only are there numerous inter­ polations in the printed editions, absent from the earliest manu­ scripts (which in turn only date from the thirteenth and four­ teenth centuries), the picture is further complicated by the existence of two recensions, a longer and shorter (LR and SR). Both of these recensions share corrupted readings, but the SR is not merely an abbreviation of the LR for it contains material not shared by the other. Hence Abrahamyan views the SR as nearer the original and the LR as an expanded secondary text, and Eremyan considers the LR as the original text. Without resolving that problem here, we may note that whenever Moses Khorenats'i uses the Ashkharhats'oyts' in his History he either takes material common to both recensions or borrows from the LR. There is no reference in Moses to material found only in the SR. His borrowings are:

Moses describes the measuring of the world on Ptolemy’s orders in terms that have parallels in both recensions but exact agreement with neither. II 13 The death of Artashes in Hellas is mentioned by both Moses and the LR, but direct verbal depen­ dence is not demonstrable. II 81 Moses’ description of China is based in part on that in the Ashkharhats'dyts' (both recensions). II 88 Moses’ disclaimer of belief is identical with the end­ ing of the LR (after the description of fabulous, half­ human, headless creatures). Ill 59 There are parallels between Moses’ description of Karin and that of Greater Armenia in the Ashkharhats'oyts'; the material is common to both recen­ sions or is found only in the LR.

I 30

Also noteworthy are two names that first are mentioned in Armenian in the Ashkharhats'oyts':

I 12 II65

Sisakan (for the province of Siunik*). Khazars.

These names do not prove that Moses was indebted to the Ashkharhats'oyts' for his information. More important for our purpose is his use of this geographical text as a literary source, with the concomitant evidence for the dating of his History. 52

Introduction The Primary History

The final Armenian text to consider is the work attributed to Sebeos, the so-called History of Heraclius. This title is a mis­ nomer; the only surviving manuscript has neither title nor author’s name.100 The major part of the work is a history of Armenia from the late sixth century to the sole rule of Muawiya (661 a.d.). This part of the text was written in the late seventh century. It is not necessary here to enter into the debate as to whether Bishop Sebeos was the author of this work. A History by Sebeos is attested in later Armenian lists of historical works, but surviving fragments of a “history of Heraclius” bear no relation to the text published under Sebeos’ name. Hence this work has been attributed to a different seventh-century author.101 So far as Moses is concerned there are only two parallels with the History on Heraclius՝.

II 42

The construction of Eruandakert has parallels with the description of the Church of Zwartnots' (chapter 33)II 46 The simile of an eagle attacking flocks of partridges, which is found also in Lazar.

It is also worth noting that Moses (II 62) uses the term Vaspurakan for southeast Armenia, which otherwise is first attested in this work attributed to Sebeos (chapter 6). The main problem, however, is what to make of three sections that precede the History proper and have no integral relation to it. The first is the story of the earliest Armenian heroes, Hayk and his descendants; the second is a brief account of the Parthian Arsacids (showing a knowledge of Eusebius’ Chronicle) and a list of the Arsacid kings of Armenia; the third is primarily a chronological table of Persian and Byzantine rulers down to the end of the Sasanian empire. The third section bears a title stating that the text has been extracted from Moses Khorenats'i and Stephen of Taron (who was writing at the very begin­ ning of the eleventh century), though this title may well be a later interpolation. The chronological information at the be­ ginning of section three is at variance with that in section two. The origin of section three is obscure. Recent commentators 100. See the bibliography for the Armenian text, and Abgaryan, Sebeosi Patmut'yune, for a recent study, reviewed by Berberian, REA, n.s. 2 (1965): 468-70. 101. See Abgaryan, Sebeosi Patmut'yune.

53

Introduction

tend to link it with the second book of Faustos’ History,102 for Faustos’ work begins with his book III; he refers in III i to earlier written accounts of Armenian history, without indicating precisely what they were. Furthermore, there are parallels in Procopius’ quotations from an “Armenian History’’ Wars, I 5.940, to Faustos, IV 54, and in Procopius’ Buildings, III 1.6, to the account in section three of “Sebeos” of the origin of the Arme­ nian Arsacids. But the problem of the exact nature of the Buzandaran (the first two unknown books and their relation to the present text of Faustos) lies beyond our immediate scope. More significant for Moses Khorenats’i are the first and second sections, conveniently named the “Primary History.”103 Moses attacks the statement here that attributes a local origin to the Bagratuni family and was thus clearly aware of the traditions in the “Primary History,” even if he did not have before him the text as now known. In fact Moses and the “Primary History” agree in the main lines of their accounts of Bel, Hayk, Ara, and the latter’s descendants; they rely on a common tradition. It is important to note that these stories are attributed by both Moses and the “Primary History” to Mar Abas. According to Moses, Mar Abas was an envoy of Valarshak, king of Armenia, who examined the Parthian archives in Nineveh. There he found a book translated at the behest of Alexander the Great from Chaldaean into Greek. From it he extracted what was relevant to Armenia; this material he brought back to King Valarshak in both Greek and Syriac. Part of it (Moses does not say what part) Valarshak had inscribed on a stele in his palace in Nisibis. But Moses implies that his own knowledge of Armenian legends derives from the written account composed by Mar Abas and preserved in the palace at Nisibis. The whole story is gravely suspect: the discovery of books in archives belongs to a long lit­ erary tradition in antiquity;104 Nineveh contained not Parthian but Assyrian archives; Assyrian archives (Moses’ Chaldaean) did not contain elaborate expositions of Armenian legendary tradi­ tion. It would be natural to dismiss Mar Abas as yet another of Moses’ aliases, another source invented to lend authenticity to his own tendentious narrative. But since Mar Abas appears in 102. See, for example, Ananian, Bazmavep 1971. 103. This name renders the Armenian nakhneats'n patmut‘iwn [History of the ancestors], Sebeos, p. 2. See the appendix for an annotated translation. 104. See Speyer, Bucherfunde.

54

Introduction the “Primary History,” which predates Moses, this enigmatic character was already part of the Armenian tradition elaborated in turn by Moses. According to the “Primary History,” Mar Abas, the philosopher of Mtsurn, found an inscription on a stele in the ruins of the palace of King Sanatruk.105 This inscription, in Greek, gave the lengths of reign of the Armenian and Parthian kings; thus, it would correspond to the second section prefaced to the History ofHeraclius by “Sebeos.” Furthermore the “Primary History” asserts that Agathangelos was responsible for writing this inscription, using the Armenian archives at the command of King Trdat. But the author of the “Primary History” does not say that this first section with the tales of the giants and early Armenian heroes stems from Mar Abas. Rather, he prefixes these stories himself to what he claims to be taking from the inscription. The “Primary History” is anonymous. In other words, the unknown Mar Abas was associated in early tradition with the discovery of an inscription preserved on a stele in the old Armenian capital. The inscription, containing a chronological list of kings, was attributed to the legendary “scribe” or “secretary” of King Trdat, Agathangelos, who in the later History attributed to him claims to have been commissioned by King Trdat to write of the conversion of the king and country to Christianity. But Mar Abas was not the author of the so-called “Primary History”; the latter, whose identity is unknown, refers to Mar Abas as the “chronicler” (the composer of the following account of the Parthian Arsacids). Moses, however, in his usual fashion has expanded on tra­ dition. The stele associated with Mar Abas and Agathangelos he claims to be but part of a much longer account of Armenian his­ tory taken from the Parthian archives. The “chronicler” he blows up into the compiler of his own expanded version of the “Primary History,” naturally identifying him with Mar Abas. So Mar Abas and the written account of Armenian history at­ tributed to him by Moses are not entirely figments of Moses’ imagination. Rather Moses has again had recourse to his favorite habit of claiming archival authenticity for tradition.106 The im­ portant point is that Moses’ fathering of archival material relat­ ing to Armenia on the legendary Mar Abas is but a literary device. 105. For Sanatruk and the Armenian capital Mtsurn (often confused in later texts with Mtsbin, “Nisibis”), see Van Esbroeck, REA 1972. 106. For a brief study of the historicity of the tradition, see Hewsen, HA *97555

Introduction

Archaeologists at Nineveh are no more likely to find tablets with Armenian legends than those who scale the mountain known only in the last millennium as Ararat are likely to find fragments of the Ark. The purpose of Moses’ History

If the elucidation of some of Moses’ sources shows that he was a well-read scholar, the use to which he puts them indicates that he was a mystifier of the first order. He quotes sources at second hand as if he had read the original; he invents archives to lend the credence of the written word to oral tradition or to his own inventions; he rewrites Armenian history in a completely ficti­ tious manner, as in his adaptations of Josephus. Clearly Moses Khorenats'i does not live up to his professed standards: no imaginary events, no obfuscation through rhetoric, strict chron­ ology, and unbiased comparison of source materials. What then was his purpose in composing such an extraordinary book, where fact and fiction, history and legend, the real and imagined, are interwoven in a most confusing manner? The analysis of Moses’ sources proves conclusively that his History is not the product of a second-rate mind unable to comprehend the canons of his­ torical writing and to pursue them effectively. Whoever Moses was, he was not only learned but clever. His protestations of strict methodology were intended to deceive, to divert critical attention, and to encourage acceptance of his own tendentious narrative. His motives appear to be complex. There is clear antiMamikonean bias.107 There is a general interest in the origins of the various Armenian noble families—where Moses proposes fantastic etymologies. And there is also a fascination with the ancient legends and traditions still current in his own time. These Moses tries to integrate into “world history” as known from Eusebius’ Chronicle or to rationalize as distorted memories of actual events. Moses provides the clue to his purpose himself: “Since our kings and other forefathers were negligent toward scholarship” and did not record “the many valiant deeds that were performed in our land” (I 3), he “has attempted to make a judicious collec­ tion of antiquarian lore” (I 19). Since “there is no study of the antiquity of our land,” he has written “this history in simple 107. See above, pp. 42, 46, 49-50. 56

Introduction

terms” so that “people may read the history of our fatherland” (III i). This History is indeed the work of an antiquarian.108 Moses’ book I is entitled “genealogy,” tsnndabanut‘iwn being a caique on the Greek ytvtaXoyia which was used for histories of the origin of the world. Moses refers to Diodore,109 whose World History began with an apx 9 (J934): 223-60. Reprinted in Etudes armeno-byzantines. Lisbon, 1965, pp. 47-109. -------- . Armenia in the Period of Justinian, trans, and rev. N. G. Garsoian. Lisbon, 1970. -------- . “Le Questionnaire de saint Grёgoire et ses rapports avec Eznik,” B-ОС 25 (i925-։926): 309-57. -------- . “Tarkou chez les anciens armeniens,” REA 7 (1927): 185-94. Akinean, N. “Biwraspi Azhdahak ew hamaynavarn Mazdak hay awandavepi mej ё51 Movses Khorenats'woy,” HA 50 (1936): cols. 1-21. -------- . “Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung der armenischen Ubersetzung des Alexanderromans von Pseudo-Kallisthenes,” Byzantion 13 (1938): 201-06. -------- . Karnamak = “Artashir Babakani уёрё yunaren Agat‘ angelosi mej,” HA 61 (1947): cols. 567-81. -------- . “Movses Khorenats'woy О1Ьё Levond Erets'i patmut'ean verjabann ё,” HA 44 (1930): cols. 8-41. -------- . “P'ok'r Sokrat ew Movses Khorenats'i,” HA 62 (1948): cols. 173-go. -------- . Tesil S. Sahakay. Vienna, 1948. Akinean, N., and Тёг-Polosean, P. “Matenagrakan hetazdtut'iwnner, T'adei 376

Secondary Literature ew Sandkhtoy Vkayabanut'iwng,” HA 83 (1969): cols. 399-426; 84 (1970): cols. 1-34, 129-48. Al-Biruni. Elements of Astrology, trans. R. R. Wright. London, 1934. Anania Shirakats'i. Biography = H. Berberian, “Autobiographic d’Anania Sirakac'i,” REA 1 (1964): 189-94. Ananian, P. “La data e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore,” Le Museon 84 (1961): 43-73, 319-60. --------. “Sebeosi Patmut'ean arajin chors glukhnerS,” Bazmavep 1971, pp. 9-24, 181-94. Apakidze, A. M., et al. Mtskheta, I. Tiflis, 1958. Arakelyan, B. “Excavations at Garni, 1949-50, 1951-55,” Contributions to the Archaeology of Armenia, Russian translation series of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, no. 3. Cambridge, Mass., 1968, pp. 13-198. Arak'elyan, B. N. “Ortel en gtnvel Ervandashat ev Ervandakert K‘alak‘ner€,” RBH 1965, no. 3: 83-94. Arak'elyan, V. D. “Khorenats'u lezun ev ochS,” PBH 1975, no. 2: 105-20. Arevshatyan, S. S. Formirovanie filosofskoy nayki v drevney Armenii (V-VI vv.). Erevan, 1973. Armen, H. K‘. “Khorenats'ii patmut'ean ch'orrord girk’S,” PBH 1960, no. 2: 174-85Asdourian, P. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenian und Rom, von 190 v.Chr. bis 428 n.Chr. Venice, 1911. Avdalbegyan, T. Studies = Hayagitakan hetazotut'yunner. Erevan, 1969. Awgerean, Y. “Memnon ew Zarmayr,” Bazmavep 1946, pp. 197-204, 232-41; J947> PP- 97֊i°7Bachrach, B. S. A History of the Alans in the West. Minneapolis, 1973. Bailey, H. W. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-century Books, 2d ed. Oxford, 1971. Barseghian, L. A. “Les viSaps des monts Guegham,” REA n.s. 5 (1968): 289-93. Bartholomae, C. Altiranisches Worterbuch. Strassburg, 1904; reprinted Berlin. 1961. Bartikyan, H. M. “Garnii hunaren ardzanagrut‘yun£ ev Movses Khorenats'in,” PBH 1965, no. 3: 229-34. Baumgartner, A. “Uber das Buch ‘die Chrie,’ ” ZDMG 40 (1886): 457-515. Bedoukian, P. Z. “A Classification of the Coins of the Artaxiad Dynasty of Armenia,” Museum Notes 14 (1968): 41-66. Benveniste, E. “L’origine du vishap armenien,” REA y (1927): 7-9. -------- . “Remarques sur les composes arm^niens en -pet,” HA 75 (1961): cols. 631-40. Berberian, H. Review of Abgaryan, Sebeosi, REA 2 (1965): 468-70. Boloyan, V. Hay zholovrdakan khaler. Erevan, 1963. Boyce, M- “AtaS-zohr and Ab-zohr,” JRAS 1966: 100-18. Brenner, H. Epitome Commentariorum Moysis Armeni de origine et regibus Armenorum et Parthorum. Stockholm, 1723. 377

Bibliography Brockelmann, C. Lexicon Syriacum, 2nd ed. Gottingen, 1928. Browne, E. G. A Literary History of Persia, 1. Cambridge, 1902; reprinted i969-

Carrata Thomes, F. Gli Alani nella politico orientale di Antonino Pio, Universita di Torino, Pubblicazioni della Facolta di lettere e filosofia, vol. 10, fasc. 2. Turin, 1958. Carriere, A. La legende d’Abgar dans I’Histoire de Moise de Khoren. Paris, ։895-------- . Les huit sanctuaires de I’Armenie payenne. Paris, 189g. -------- . Moise de Khoren et les genealogies patriarchales. Paris, 1891. -------- . Nouvelles sources de Moise de Khoren. Vienne, 1893. Supplement. 1894. Cerulli, E. “Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in Ethiopian Tradition and Poetry,” PB^ 59(։973): Mi-58Ch‘amch‘eants‘, M. Patmut' iwn Hayots‘, 3 vols. Venice. 1784-1786. Chaumont, M.-L. Recherches sur I’histoire d’Armenie. Paris, 196g. Christensen, A. LTran sous les Sassanides, 2d ed. Copenhagen, ig44Ch't'ch'ean, S. “Mi lusabanut'iwn Khorenats‘uts‘,” Bazmavep iggo: 173-6. Chukaszyan, B. L. “Byuraspi Azhdahaki araspelS est Movses Khorenats'u,” Telekagir iggS, no. 1: 67—84. -------- . “Echos de legendes epiques iraniennes dans les ‘Lettres’ de Grigor Magistros,” REA n.s. 1 (ig64) 321-g. -------- . Hay-Iranakan grakan ainch'ut'yunner V-XVII1 dd. Erevan, ig63. Conybeare, F. C. “An Old Armenian Version of Josephus,” JTS g (igo8): 577֊83-------- . “The Relation of the Pascal Chronicle to Malalas,” BZ 11 (igo2): 385-405Cross, F. L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2d ed. London, 1974-

Debevoise, N. C. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, ig38; reprinted i969Deeters, G.; Solta, G. R.; and Inglisian, V. Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen, Handbuch der Orientalistik, ie Abteilung, yte Band. Leiden, i963Delehaye, H. Les passions des martyres et les genres litteraires, 2d ed., Subsidia hagiographica, 13B. Brussels, ig66. Der Nersessian, S. Aght'amar, Church of the Holy Cross. Cambridge, Mass., i965-------- . “Miniatures de la bataille des Vardaniens,” in Etudes byzantines et armeniennes. Louvain, ig73, 1:701-04. (Translation of the Armenian in Sion 1952> P- 62-5). Djanachian, M. “Les Armdnistes et les Mekhitaristes,” Armeniaca. Venice, 1969. PP- 383-445von Dobschiitz, E. Christusbilder, TU, 18. Leipzig, i8gg. D’Onofrio, M. Le chiese di Dvin. Rome, ig73378

Secondary Literature Dowsett, C. J. F. “Ancient Armenian Roller-skates?” GJ 130 (1964): 180-83. Drews, R. “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” Iraq 37 (1975): 39_55Drijvers, H. J. W. Bardaisan of Edessa. Assen, 1966. Du Cange, D. Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, ed. L. Favre, 10 vols. Paris, 1937-1938. Dum&il, G. “Le dit de Satinik,” REA 9 (1929): 41-53. --------. “Vahagn,” RHR 117 (1938): 152-70. Dvornik, F. The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 4. Cambridge, Mass., 1958. Dyakonov, I. M. Predistoria Armyanskogo naroda. Erevan, 1968. Eilers, W. Semiramis, Sitzungsberichte der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 274 pt. 2. Vienna, 1971. Eremyan, S. T. Hayastane est “Ashkharhats‘oyts‘”-i. Erevan, 1963. -------- . “Hayastani k’alak'akan vichakS Artavazd V-i zhamanak (252/3261),” Lraber 1975, no. 1: 13-22. -------- . Map = Map at end of “Hayastane” (see above).

Finck, F. N. “Kleinere mittelarmenische Texte,” ZAP 1 (1903): 177-219. Frye, R. N. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland and New York, 1963. de Gaiffier, B. “Les Marsi dans quelques textes hagiographiques,” RAC 48 (1972): 167-72. Gandolfo, F. “Un Martyrium sepolcrale armeno: la cappella degli apostoli a Karenis,” Annuario, Istituto di Storia dell’Arte (Rome), I (1973-4). Garitte, G. Documents pour I’etude du livre d’Agathange, ST 127. Vatican, 1946. -------- . La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, CSCO Subsidia, 4. Louvain, 1952. -------- . “La vision de S. Sahak en grec,” Le Museon 71 (1958): 225-78. Garsoian, N. G. "Politique ou orthodoxie? L’Armenie au quatrieme si&cle,” REA n.s. 4 (1967): 297-320. -------- . The Paulician Heresy. The Hague and Paris, 1967. -------- . “Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of Nerses the Great,” Armeniaca. Venice, 1969, pp. 148-64. -------- - See also Adontz, N. Gat'rchean, Y. Tiezerakan Patmut'iwn, 2 vols. Vienna, 1849, 1852. Gelzer, H. “Die Anfange der armenischen Kirche,” Berichte der kbniglichen sachischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 47 (1895): 109-74. -------- -. Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie, 2 parts. Leipzig, 1880-1898; reprinted New York, 1967. Gelzer, H.; Hilgenfeld, H.; and Cuntz, O. Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina. Leipzig, 1898. Gero. S. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III, CSCO Subsidia, 41. Louvain, 1973. Gershevitch, I. G. “Die Sonne das Beste,” Mithraic Studies, ed. J. R. Hinnells. Manchester, 1975, pp. 68-8g. 379

Bibliography Gibbon, E. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury, 7 vols. London, 1896-1900. Grigoryan, A. V. Hay Barbaiagitut'yan Dasent‘ats‘. Erevan, 1957. Grillmeier, A. Christ in Christian Tradition. London, 1965. Grousset, R. Histoire de l’Armenie des origines a 1071. Paris, 1947. Grumel, V. La Chronologic, Bibliotheque byzantine; Traitd d’etudes byzantines, 1. Paris, 1958. Guidi, I. “Textes orientaux in^dits du martyre de Judas Cyriaque,” ROC 9 (1904): 79-95. von Gutschmid, A. “Uber die Glauwiirdigkeit der armenischen Geschichte des Moses von Khoren,” Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der koniglichen sachischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 28 (1876): 1-43. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften, ed. F. Ruhl. Leipzig, 1892,3:282-338. Hasrat'yan, M. S. “Orn e Movses Khorenats'u tsnndavayrf,” Lraber 1969, no. 12: 81-90. Hats’uni, V. Hay Droshnere, 2d ed. Venice, 1930. -------- . Patmut‘iwn hin Hay Tarazin. Venice, 1924. Hewsen, R. H. “Armenia According to the A§xarhac‘uyc‘,” REA 2 (1965): 3»9֊42-------- . “Caspiane: An Historical and Geographical Survey,” HA 87 (1973): cols. 87-106. •-------- . “The Primary History of Armenia: An Examination of the Validity of an Immemorially Transmitted Historical Tradition,” History in Africa 2 (։975): g1-100Honigmann, E. Patristic Studies, ST 173. Vatican, 1953. Honigmann, E. and Maricq, A. “Recherches sur les Res gestae divi Sapor is,” Memoires de l’Academie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres, 47 (1953): fasc. 4. Hovhannisyan, S. “Nshanadrufyung val avatakan Hayastanum,” BEH 1971, no- 3: 193-203Hiibschmann, H. Armenische Grammatik, Erster Teil: Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig, 1897; reprinted Hildesheim, 1962. -------- . (AON) Die altarmenische Orstnamen. Strassburg, 1904; reprinted Amsterdam, 1969.

Inglizean, V. “Kiwrli Erusalemats'woy t'ult' af Kostandios Kaisr,” HA 79 (1965): cols. 1-16.

James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford, 1963. Janin, R. Constantinople byzantine, 2d ed. Paris, 1964. -------- . La geographic ecclesiastique de I’empire byzantin. Premiere partie, Le siege de Constantinople et le patriarchat oecumenique; tome III: Les eglises et les monasteres. Paris, 1969. Justi, F. Iranisches Namenbuch. Marburg, 1895; reprinted Hildersheim, i96338o

Secondary Literature Kekelidze, K. “Chronique d’Hippolyte et 1‘historien gdorgien Leonti Mroveli,” BK 17-18 (1964): 88-94. Khalatiants', G. Armjanskie Arshakidy v “Istorii Armenii” Moiseja Khorenskago, 2 pts., Trudy po Vostokovedeniju, izdamaemye Lazarevskim Institutom Vostochnykh Jazykov, Bypusk XIV. Moscow, 1903. ------- . Armjanskij Epos v istorii Armenii Moiseja Khorenskago, 2 pts. Moscow, 1896. ------- ■. “Movses Khorenats'i ew iwr albiwrnerg: Grigor Astuatsaban,” Ararat 31 (1897): 531-9. Khatchatrian, A. L’Architecture armenienne du IVe au Vle siecle, Biblioth^que des Cahiers archeologiques, 7. Paris, 1971. ------- . "Les monuments fun^raires armeniens des IV-VII siecles et leurs analogues syriennes,” BF 1 (1966): 179-92. K'olanjyan, S. “Movses Khorenats'u norahayt erkat’agir patafikn u Dan­ ielyan nshanagreri dgtagortsman zhamanaki harts'S,” BM 4 (1958): 163-82. Komoroczy, G. “Berossus and the Mesopotamian Literature,” AA 21 (1973): 125-52Krkyasharyan, S. M. “Ervanduni ark‘ayatohm£ Hayastanum,” PBH 1973, no. 4: 179-86. ------- . “Evs mi angam Garnii hunaren ardzanagrut'yan masin,” PBH 1965, no-3: 235-8Lafadaryan, K. Dvin k‘alak‘e ev nra pelumnere. Erevan, 1952. Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 5 pts. Oxford, 1961-1968. Laurent, J- L’Armenie entre Byzance et I’lslam. Paris, 1919. Leloir, L. “La version armenienne du nouveau testament,” in Die alten iibersetzungen des neues Testaments, die Kirchvaterzitate und Lektionare, ed. K. Aland, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, 5. Berlin, 1972, pp. 300-13. -------- . “Versions armeniennes,” in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 6. Paris, i960, cols. 810-18. Lemerle, P. “Note sur les donnees historiques de 1’autobiographie d’Anania de Shirak,” REA 1 (1964): 195-202. Leroy, M. “Les composes armeniens en -pet,” Annuaire de ITnstitut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 15 (1958-1960): 109-28. Levison, W. “Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester-Legende,” Miscel­ lanea Francesco Ehrle II, ST 38 (1924): 158-247. Lewy, H. “The Date and Purpose of Moses of Chorene’s History,” Byzantion 11 81-96. -------- . The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, S.D., 'j, pt. 1. London, 1936. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. and augmented by H. S. Jones (with the assistance of R. McKenzie), with a supplement edited by E. A. Barber. Oxford, 1968. Liidtke, W. “Zur Dberlieferung der Reden Gregors von Nazianz,” OC 3 (1913): 263-76. Lukonin, V. G. Persia II, Archaeologia Mundi. Geneva, 1967. 381

Bibliography Lyonnet, S. Les origines de la version armenienne et le diatessaron. Biblica et Orientalia, 13. Rome, 1950.

Macler, F. Apocalypses apocryphes de Daniel. Paris, 1895. -------- . Les Dew armeniens. Paris, 1929. -Maenschen-Helfen, O. The World of the Huns. Berkeley, California, 1973. Manandian, H. A. Tigrane II et Rome, trans. H. Thorossian. Lisbon, 1963. —. The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade, trans. N. G. Garsoian. Lisbon, 1965. -------- . Yunaban dprots'e ew nra zargats'man shrjannere. Vienna, 1928. Mansi, G. D. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 30 vols. Florence, 1759-92. Marias, L. Sources = Le De Deo. Etudes de critique litteraire et textuelle, REA 4 (1924). Markwart, J. “La province de Parskahayk',” REA 3 (1966): 252-314. -------- . Siidarmenien und die Tigrisquellen. Vienna, 1930. Marquart, J. = Markwart. Erdnsahr nach der Geographic des Ps.-Moses Xorenac'i, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, N.F. 3. Berlin, 1901; reprinted Wiesbaden, 1970. -------- . Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifziige. Leipzig, 1903; reprinted Hildesheim, 1961. Melik'-Ohanjanyan, K. M. “Agat'angelosi banahyusakan albiwrneri harts'i shurjg,” PBH 1964, no. 4: 53-82. Melkonyan, H. G. Hay-Asorakan haraberut‘ yunneri patmut‘yunits‘. Erevan, 1970. Minorsky, V. “Le nom de Dvin,” REA 10 (1930): 117-20. Mkryan, M. “Movses Khorenats'u Ashkharhahayts‘k‘£,” BEH 1968, no. 1: 32-5OMnatsakanyan, A. “Dawt'ean k‘ert‘ut‘iwn or yalags Tigranay erkS ev Tigran Ervandyan vepe,” BEH 1973, no. 1: 64-81. Muradyan, A. N. Hunaban dprots‘e ev nra dere hayereni k‘erakanakan terminabanut'yan steltsman gortsum. Erevan, 1971. Mzik, H. E/rdmessung, Grad, Meile und Stadion nach den altarmenischen Quellen. Vienna, 1933. Neusner, J. “The Conversion of Adiabene to Christianity,” Numen 13 (1966): 144-50. Nbldeke, T. “Geschichte des Artaschir-i-Papakan aus dem Pehlevi iibersetzt,” Beitrage zur Kunde der Indogermanischen Sprachen 4 (1879): 22-69. Nor Bargirk' Haykazean Lezui, ed. G. Awetik'ian, Kh. Siwrmelean, and M. Awgerean, 2 vols. Venice, 1836-1837.

Oskean, H. Vaspurakan-Vani Vank'ere. Vienna, 1947. Peeters, P. “La l^gende de saint Jacques de Nisibe,” AB 38 (1920): 285-373. -------- . “Les debuts du christianisme en Georgie d’apr£s les sources hagiographiques,” AB 50 (1932): 5-58. 382

Secondary Literature --------. “Sainte Sousanik, martyre en Armcno-G^orgie,” AB 53 (1935): 5-48, 245-307. Perikhanean, A. G. Kharamovye ob’edinenija Maloi Azii i Armenii. Moscow, J959--------. “Une inscription arameenne du roi ArtaSes trouv^e 5 Zangudzour,” 3 (1966): J7֊29Petrosyan, S. G. “Sasna Tsferi erek‘ elpaynerd ev nrants' vipasanakan zugahefnere,” Lraber 1975, no. 9: 71-7. Pigoulewsky, N. “Le martyre de saint Cyriaque de Jerusalem,” ROC 26 (1927-1928): 305-56. Pivazyan, E. “Movses Khorenats'u ‘Patmut'yan’ mi karevor hatvatsi t'argmanut'yan masin,” PBH 1963, no. 2: 266-8. Polarean, N. Hay Grolner. Jerusalem, 1971. Quasten, J. Patrology, 3 vols. Utrecht and Antwerp, 1966. Richard, M. “Acace de Melitene, Proclus de Constantinople et la Grande Armcnie,” Memorial Louis Petit, Archives de 1’orient chretien, 1. Buchar­ est, i948, pp. 393-412. Riviere, J. “318, un cas de symbolisme arithmetique,” RTAM 6 (1934): 349-67. Robert, L. “Inscriptions d’Athenes et de la Grdce centrale,” AE 1969, pp. 1-58. Rosenthal, F. The Classical Heritage in Islam. London, 1975. Runciman, J. C. S. “Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa,” CHJ 3 (1929։930: 238-252-

Saint-Martin, A. J. Memoires historiques et geographiques sur I’Armenia, 2 vols. Paris, 1818-1819. Sanspeur, C. “Le fragment de 1’histoire de Lazare de P'arpi, retrouve dans le Ms. 1 de Jerusalem,” REA 10 (1973-1974)- 83-109. ------- ■. “Trois sources byzantines de “1’Histoire des Armdniens” de Lazare de P'arpi,” Byzantion 44 (1974): 440-48. --------. “Une nouvelle liste de Catholicos dans le ms. armdnien 121 de Paris,” 87 (1973): cols. 185-202. Sardaryan, S. H. “Hin Valarshapati teladrut'yund dst hnagitakan ev matenagrakan tvyalneri,” Lraber 1975, no- 7՞ 52-69Sargsyan, G. Kh. “Albyumeri ogtagortsman elanakd Movses Khorenats'u mot,” BM 3 (1956): 31-42. -------- ֊. “Dardzeal Movses Khorenats'u zhamanakagrakan hamakargi masin,” PBH 1971, no. 1: 156-8. ------- Hellenistakan Darashrjani Hayastane ev Movses Khorenats'in. Ere­ van, 1966. -------- . “Khorenats'u ‘Patmut'yan’ zhamanakagrut'akan hamakargi verakangnman masin,” PBH 1968, no. 1: 119-46. -------- . “Tigran B-i ev Artavazd B-i gahatarineri k'anakn dst Khorenats'u,” Lraber 1967, no. 12: 66-72. 383

Bibliography -------- . Zhamanakagrakan = Movses Khorenats'u “Hayots' Patmut'yan” zhamanakagrakan hamakarge. Erevan, 1965. Sarkissian, K. The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church. London, 1965; reprinted New York, 1975. Schreckenberg, H. Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. Leiden, 1972. Schroder, J. J. Thesaurus Linguae Armenicae. Amsterdam, 1711. Segal, J. B, Edessa, “The Blessed City.” Oxford, J970. Sgarbi, R. “Contribute allo studio delie fonti dell’opera yalags Pitoyits' attribuita a Mose Corenese,” Rendiconti, Institute Lombardo, Accademia di Scienze e Lettere, Classe di Lettere e Scienze morali e storiche (Milano), 1O3 (J9$9): 78-84Shahinyan, L. P. “Movses Khorenats'u ‘Patmut'yan’ mej hishatakvol Vahei masin,” PBH 1973, no. 4: 172-8. -------- . “Movses Khorenats'u zhamanakagrut'yan mi k'ani harts'eri masin,” PBH 1971, no. 1: 131-55. -------- . “Norits' Movses Khorenats'u 'Hayots' Patmut’yan’ zhamanakagrut'­ yan masin,” PBH 1967, no. 4: 135-56. -------- . “Orn ё Khorenats'u 'Hayots' Patmut'yan’ zhamanakagrakan hamakarge,” BM 8 (1967): 21-56. -------- . “Parsits' Arshakuni harstut'yan himnadrman taretivn £st Khore­ nats'u,” PBH 1966, no. 1: 155-72. Shakhnazaryan, H. A. “Movses Khorenats'i i vopros о date osnovanija Parfjanskogo gosudarstva Arshakidov,” BEH 1974, no. 1: 89-99. Sinko, Th. De Traditione orationum GregoriiNazianeni, 2 vols., Meletemata Patristica, 2, 3. Cracow, 1917, 1923. Skinner, J. “The Alexander Romance in the Armenian Historians.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1940. Sophocles, E. A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. New York, 1957. Speyer, W. Bilcherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike, Hypomnemata, 24. Gottingen, 1970. von Stackelberg, R. “Bemerkungen zur persischen Sagensgeschichte,” WZKM 12 (1898): 230-48. Stein, E. Histoire du Bas-empire, 2 vols. Paris, 194g, 1959. Stone, M. E. “Armenian Canon Lists—the Council of Partaw (768 c.e.),” HTR 66 (1973): 479-86. Sundberg, A. C. The Old Testament of the Early Church. Harvard Theo­ logical Studies, 20. Cambridge, Mass., 1964. Svazyan, H. S. “Chenerf ev Chenats' ashkharhe £st haykakan albyurneri,” PBH 1976, no. 4: 203-12.

Tallon, M. Livre des Lettres, ler groupe. Mёlanges de I’universitd Saint Joseph, 32, fasc. 1. Beirut, 1955. TarchniSvili, M. “Sources armёno-gёorgiennes de 1’histoire ancienne de l^glise de Gёorgie,” Le Museon 60 (1947): 20-50. 3 84

Secondary Literature Tarn, W. W. The Greeks in Bactria and India, 2d ed. Cambridge, 1951. Tashian, Y. Usumnasirut‘iwnk‘ stoyn-Kalist‘eneay varuts' Alek'sandri. Vi­ enna, 1892. Ter-Levondyan, A. “Agat'angelosi arabakan khmbagrut'yan norahayt amboljakan bnagirf,” PBH 1973, no. 1: 209-37. -------- . “Agat'angelosi khmbagrut'yunneri harts'g gst Khorenats'u tvyalneri,” PBH 1975, no. 4: 129-39. Ter-Minasyan, E. G. Mijnadaryan Alandneri Tsagman ev Zargatsman PatmuCyunits'. Erevan, 1965. Ter-Movsesyan, M. Istorija Perevoda Biblii na Armjanskii Jazik. St. Peters­ burg, 1902. Thomson, R. W. Agathangelos, History of the Armenians. Albany, 1976. -------- . “The Fathers in Early Armenian Literature,” SP 12 (1975): 457՜7°-------- . “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography,” JTS 26 (1975): 329-4 Խ --------. “The Shorter Recension of the Root of Faith,” REA 5 (1968): 249-60. --------. The Teaching of Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism, Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 3. Cambridge, Mass., 1970. Tirats'yan, G. “Movses Khorenats'u 'Hayots' Patmut'yan’ ev Straboni ‘Ashkharhagrut'yan’ mi k'ani tvyalner Hayastani n.m.t'. Ill-IIrd dareri patmut'yan masin,” BM 6 (1962): 7-24. Toumanoff, C. “On the date of the Pseudo-Moses of Chorene,” HA 7$ (1961): cols. 467-76. --------. Review of Chaumont, REA 7 (1970): 473-8. - ------ . Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington, D.C., 1963. -------- . “The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids: a Chronological and Genealogical Commentary,” REA 6 (1969): 233-81. Trever, К. V. Ocherki po istorii i kul’tury Kavkzskoj Albanii. Moscow and Leningrad, 1959. -------- . Ocherki po istorii kul’tury drevnej Armenii. Moscow and Leningrad, J953Tseretheli, M. “Asianic Elements in National Georgian Paganism,” Georgica 1 (։935): շ8֊66. Vailhg, S. “Acem£tes,” Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Geographic ecclesiastiques, 1. Paris, 1912, pp. 274-82. Van Esbroeck, M. “Chronique armenienne,” AB 80 (1962): 423-45. -------- . “Le roi Sanatrouk et 1’apotre Thaddee,” REA 9 (1972): 241-83. -------- . “Temoignages litteraires sur les sepultures de S. Grggoire I’llluminateur,” AB 89 (1971): 387-418. -------- . “Un nouveau temoin du livre d’Agathange,” REA 8 (1971): 13-167. Vardanyan, V. “Inch' en ‘tueleats” ergerg,” BEH 1973, no. 3: 203-08. Vogt, J. “Berichte fiber Kreuzerscheinungen aus den 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.,” Annuaire de I’lnstitut de philologie et d’histoire orientates et slaves 9 (1949): 593-6o6.

385

Bibliography von Wesendonck, O. G. “Uber georgisches Heidentum,” Caucasica i (1924): 1-102. Watkins, C. “La famille indo-europeenne de grec linguistique, po^tique et mythologie,” BSL 70 (1975): 11-23. Widengren, G. Die Religionen Irans. Stuttgart, 1965. Wikander, S. Feuerpriester in Kleinasien und Iran. Lund, 1946. Wolski, J. “L’historicite d’Arsace Ier,” Historia 8 (1959): 222-38. Zarp'analean, G. Matenadaran Haykakan T‘argmanut'eants' Nakhneats'. Venice, 188g.

386

Index

References to "Map” are to the map at the end of this book. The numbering of kings and other persons (I, II, and so on) follows Moses and does not necessarily reflect modern usage. An index of scriptural quotations and al­ lusions may be found on page 405.

Abbasid Caliphate, 59, 60 Abdiu, 170 Abel, 137 Abel, son of Adam, 72, 253 Abelean family, 137 Abelini family, 202 Abeloy, 202 Abgar, 13, 18, 24, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 146, 163-179, 215, 366 Abimelek, 105 Abraham, 3, 18, 73-75, 77,104,130, 2H-215. 35Ն 363 Abydenus, 14, 70, 71, 76, 140 Acacius, 49, 328, 335 Achaemenian kings, 15 Achilles, 21,124,129, 273, 302 Adam, 4, 13, 71, 72, 214 Addai, see Thaddaeus Adde, Count, 296 Adde, of Edessa, 171, 175, 176 Adramelek', 112 Adrianople, 290 Africa, 104 Africanus, see Julius Africanus Agabus, 177 Agathangelos, 4—6, 15, j6, 20, 21, շց,

37> 39> 41-45» 55’213’ 214’221’ 227’ 229’ 235- 240, 358 Agras, 104 Agrochan, 228 Akeats'i family, 143; Ake (Map D6) Akhurean, R., 182, 185, 189 (Map B5) Akrazanis, 106 Alanaozan Pahlavik, 291, 292 Alans, 27, 190-193, 195, 200, 240 Albania (Aluank‘), 42, 44, 119, 13g, 140, 236, 265, 322 (Map B7) Albanians, 15g, 256, 25g, 2g8, 321 Albianos, 300, 303 Aldznik', 18, 112, 168, 257 (Map D4) Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, 245 Alexander, bishop of Constanti­ nople, 245 Alexander, son of Herod, 163 Alexander, son of John, 153 Alexander Romance, see Ps.Callisthenes Alexander the Great, 12, 15, 21,24, 25> 34> 54- 83> 124> 129’ 130, 140, M7- l49> J5°’ 244. 254. 260, 362, 363

Index Alexandra Messalina, 153 Alexandria, 2, 4, 24, 25, 32, 47, 67, 222, 244, 245, 335-338 Aliovit, 159, 203, 205, 278, 27g (Map C5) Alki, 196 (Map D5) Alovros, 71 Altados, 105 Alt'amar, 269 (Map C5) Alts‘k‘, 283 (in Aragatsotn) Aluank', see Albania, Albanians Amalek, 297 Amaras, 256 (Map C7) Amasya, 75, 76, 90, 243, 358, 361 Amatuni family, igg, 200, 224, 235, 237> 258- 3°6, 316> 344 Amintes, 105 Amiwros, 105 Ammianus Marcellinus, 23 Ampak, 106 Amphilocius, 291 Amram, 104 Anahit, 29. See also Artemis Anak, 41, 45, 214, 220, 221, 232, 250 Anan, 168, 169 Anania, bishop of Siunik', 322 Anania, Maccabee, 145 Anania Shirakats'i, 2, 51 Ananun, 174 Anatolia, 82, 151, 162, 163, 273 Anatolius, 25, 328, 330-331, 342 Ancyra, 335 Andrew, 169 Andzevats'i family, 143, 205, 301; Andzevats'ik' (Map C5) Anebay, 76 Anebis, 74 Angl, 113, 114, 141, 362 (Map C4) Ani Kamakh, 13, 16, 35, 149, 152, 181, 189, 196, 212, 224, 263, 282, 307 (Map C3) Anoysh, 120, 123 Antigon, son of Demetrius, 131, 132 Antigonus, of family of Aristobulus, 156-159 Antioch, 162, 163, 245, 335, 364 Antiochus, Constantius’ palace prefect, 258, 259 Antiochus, father of P'arandzem, 280-281. Antiochus Epiphanes, 19, 351 Antiochus Sidetes, 132, 364, 365 388

Antiochus Soter, 130, 363 Antiochus Theos, 82, 130, 215, 363, 364 Antipater, 155 Antoninus Pius, 34, 212 Antony, Mark, 28, 158-160 Antony, son of Severus Caracalla, 222 Antsit, 269 (Map C3) Anush, 293,315,323 Anushavan Sawsanuer, 106-108 Anyisheli, see Anush Apahuni family, 142, 168, 290, 342 Aphrodite, 149, 152, 290 Apollo, 21, 24, 148, igo Aprsam Spanduni, 326 Ap'shadar, 178 Ara, son of Ara the handsome, 106, 107 Ara the handsome, 14, 43, 54, 75, 76, 96-98, 359- 361-363 Arabia, 51 Aragats, Mt., go, 185, 276, 283, 363 (Map B6) Aralios, 105 Aram, ig, 73-77, 80, g2-g6, 122, 35g, 361 Aramaic, 12, 48 Aramaneak, 74-76, 85-go. 107, 358-363, 365, 367 Aramayir, 361 Aramayis, 75, 76, go, 358, 361 Aramazd, 2g, 122, ig6, 23g, 268. See also Orrnizd Aran (country), see Albania Aran (person), 13g, 140 Ararad, 85, 86, 35g, 361 Ararat, Mt., 56 (Map C6). See also Masis Ara van, 123 Aravelean family, 200, 306 Aravenean family, 123, 142, 306 Araxes, R., gi, 133, 13g, 181, 182, igo, ig4, 210 (Map B5-C7). See also Eraskh Arbak, 106 Arbel, 74, 76 Afberan, 15g, 203, 205, 278 (Map C5֊6) Arbok Chen-bakur, 230 Arbun, 107 Arcadius, 37, 50, 51, 303, 304, 308, 312-314,318,321

Index Archelaus, son of Herod, 4, 164 Archilaeus, murderer of Aristakes, 249 Ardamozan, 34, 112 Ardzan, 334 Ardzil, 333 Ardzn, 143 (Map D4) Arebanus, 175 (MapC6) Ares, 261, 268 Aretas, 35, 167 Argam Muratsean, 184-187, 193, 194 Argavan, 121, 122, 194. See also Argam Arians, 37, 246, 287 Arios, Chaldaean king, 105 Arios, historian, 14, 76 Aristakes, 18, 42, 46, 245, 246, 248, 249’ 255 Aristobulus, 153, 156 Ariston, of Pella, 15, 35, 201 Aristotle, 20 Arius, 38, 244 Arjam, see Arsham Afmamit'reos, 105 Armavir, 28, 40, 90-93, 107, 133, 143, 148, 154, 181, 182, 191, 225, 288, 289 (Map B6) Armenias, the four provinces, 51, 59, 94; First, 94, 95; Second, 95; Third, 95; Fourth, 95, 142, 249, 3°7 Armog, 124, 362 Arnak, 106 Arpaxat', 74 Arsacids, of Armenia, 7, 12, 53, 54, 60, 129, 133’ ։44- J59. 183, 205, 209, 215, 223, 225, 233, 250, 256, 257> 277> 288, 301, 304, 310, 312, 344; 350 Arsacids, of Parthia, 12, 53, 363 Arshak, son of Arshak the Great, 366 Arshak, son of Arshavir, 366 Arshak, son of Pap, 32, 50, 303-309, 31J Arshak, son of Tiran, 47, 266, 272, 273- 275֊282’ 284-295, 299’ 367 Arshak, successor of Valarshak I, 366 Arshak I, of Armenia, 12, 19, 30, 144՜։ 47. 365> 366 Arshak III, of Parthia, 195, 216, 366 Arshak the Brave (first Parthian king), 130, 131, 215

Arshak the Great (of Parthia), 22, 81-83, 124, 129, 130-133, 166, 200, 215’ 363-366 Arshakan, 147, 151, 215 Arshakavan, 282, 283, 285, 287 (in Kogayovit) Arsham, 34, 35, 160-163, 168, 366 Arshanak, 215 Arshanoysh, 312 Arsharunik', 5, 247, 299, 306, 342 (Map B5) Arshavir, king of Armenia, 366 Arshavir, king of Parthia, 161, 163, 165, 166, 215, 216, 366 Arshavir, son of Kamsar, 247, 263, 288 Arshen, 366 Arshez, 160, 215 Arsvalen, 322 Artagerk', 287, 292, 293 (Map B5) Artasham, 147 Artashat, 28, 29, 42, 121, 190, 191, 194, 195, 203,225,293, 294 (Map C6) Artashes, son of Tiran, 266 Artashes, son of Vfamshapuh, later called Artashir, 323, 331 Artashes I, of Armenia, 15, 19, 29, 52, 92, 144, 147-151, 225, 366 Artashes II, of Armenia, 11, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 43, 121, 178-204, 246, 366 Artashes I, of Parthia, 131,215 Artashes II, of Parthia, 155, 156, 160 Artashes III, of Parthia, 165-168, 173, 174, 178, 215, 216, 366 Artashes IV, of Parthia, 195, 216, 218 Artashir, king of Armenia, earlier called Artashes, 51, 330, 331, 339-34։. 344 Artashir, king of Parthia, 366 Artashir, son of Sasan, 16, 42, 43, 19g, 213, 214, 216-220, 223-226, 237, 241, 3J7 Artashir II, son of Shapuh, 314-317 Artavan, king of Armenia, 366 Artavan, king of Parthia, 16, 212, 213, 216, 218, 366, 367 Artavazd, son of Artashes II, 12, 121, 193-196, 198, 203-205, 213, 366 Artavazd, son of Tigran the Great, 27, 28, 159, 160 38 9

Index Artavazd Mandakuni, 223, 225, 226, 232, 237, 258 Artaz, 174, 195, 220, 221 (Map C6) Artemis, 21, 24, 29, 148, 149, 152, 190, 202, 290. See also Anahit Artimed, 210 Artikas, 110 Artit'es, 228 Artske, 340 (Map C5) Artsruni family, 60, 112, 138, 176, 286, 312, 342 Aruastan, 365 Aryans, 118, 166, 184, 199, 200, 220, 230, 282, 340; non-Aryans, 282 Ashkhadar, 306-308 Ashkharhats‘oyts‘, 51, 52, 58, 5g Ashkhen, 233 Ashnash, 366 Ashot, Bagratid name, 208 Ashot I, of Iberia, 59 Ashots', 140, 226, 232, 342 (Map B5) Ashtishat, 148, 152, 270, 336, 348 (Map C4) Ashusha, 333 Asia, 82, 131, 132, 148, 150, 335; Asia Minor, 153; Asian sea, 95 Asiastan, 364, 365 Ask'anaz, 110 Askatades, 105 Aspahapet Pahlav family, 166, 216, 218, 21g Aspat, 362 Aspion, 270 Aspurakes, 303, 313 Assyria, 80, 81, дз֊д5, gg, to 1, 102, 108, 10g, 112, 133, 143,173, 181, tg6, 202, 213, 218, 220, 233, 241, 259, 293, 362; Assyrian archives, 54 Assyrians, 12, 14, 18, 6g, g4, 10g, 125, 184, ig6 Astlik, 78 Asud, 152, 208 At'anagenes, 26g, 273, 313 Atat, 306 Athena, 24, 14g, 152, 268 Athenians, 251 Athens, 2, 20g Atom, 324 Attica, 150, 33g Atticus, 327, 32g Augusteum, 332 Augustus, 18, 34, 163, 164 39°

Avod, 105 Awde, 177 Awshakan, 262, 34g (Map B6) Awtay, 224, 232, 235 Ayrarat, 50, gy, g8, 110, 15g, 203, 210, 225. 277» 278, 31Ն 331- 333 (Map C6) Azaria, 162 Azat, river in Armenia, 261 (Map B6); in Palestine, 160. See also Masis Azayel, 351 Azerbaijan, 82, 133, 13g, 15g, 184, 220, 25g, 347 (Map D7) Azhdahak, 11, 110, 114-121, 13g, 184, igo, 204. See also Biurasp Azhdanakan, 20 (Map B6)

Bab, son of Nimrod, 74, 76 Bab, son of Tigran I, 123 Babik, 303, 305 Babylon, 85, 86, 8g, 12g, 131, 133, M9, *73> 252> 358-360, 362-365 Babylonians, 111, 362, 364 Babylos, 320 Bactria, 80 Bactrians, 33, 78 Bagadia, 30, 208 Bagam, 124, 362 Bagaran, on Akhurean, 182, 18g, igo, 225 (Map B5) Bagaran, in Kogayovit, 18g Bagarat, see Shambat Bagarat Bagarat, son of Smbat, 237, 258, 25g, 261, 262, շց6 Bagarat Angj, 362 Bargarat P'afazean, 365 Bagavan, Town of Altars, ig8, 213, 225> 347 (Map C5) Bagayarinj, 152 (Map C4) Bagratuni family, 10, 27, 30, 40, 42, 54, 57-61, 66, 111, 133, 152, 160, 176, 207-208, շց6; Georgian branch, 5g Bagrevand, 5, 213, 288, 346; battle of (772)- 59 (Map C5) Bahl, 131, 215, 21g, 220, 363, 366, 367 Bakur, bdeashkh of Aldznik', 18, 257> 259 Bakur, king of Georgia, 322 Bakur, prince of Siunik', 207 Bakurakert, 202 (Map C6)

Index Balas, 333 (Map B7) Baleos, 105 Baleos, 105 Balo tores, 105 Banan, 15, 79 Bar Kochba, 35, 201 Barak, 105 Bardaisan, 16, 35, 212 Barsham, 94 Barshamin, 24, 29, 152 Barsuma, 16, 216, 217 Bartholomew, 175 Barzaphran, 28, 156, 157, 161, 293 Basean, 135, 140, 197, 210 (Map B5) Basil, of Amasya, 243 Basil, of Caesarea, 39 Basilk' (also Basilk'), 27, 42, 200, 211, 236, 237 Bat, 180 Bat'nik'al, 165 Bayberd, 180, 18։ (Map B4) Baz, 89 Bazuk, 107 Bel, 24, 33- 54> 73> 75. 76- 81 > 93- 165, 358-360 Belok'os, 105, 106 Bendidius, 158. See also Vendidius Benjamin, 322 Bergition, 285 Berossus, 14, 33, 67, 70, 77, 78 Bet‘-Kubin, 168 Bible, Armenian, 2, 48, 75, 321, 336; Moses’ use of, 17-20, 38 Bithynia, 59, 245, 272 Bithynians, 151 Biurasp Azhdahak, 126-128 Biurat Bagratuni, 177, 179, 207 Biwrat, son of Bagarat, 362 Bldokh,230 Blur, 347 (in Bagrevand) Borborites, 330, 331 Brkisho, 342, 345 Bugnan,164 Bulgars, 145 Burdar, 45, 228 Burz, 219, 241 Byzantine empire, 2, 46. See also Greece, Greeks, Rome Byzantium, 2, 243, 266, 270, 274, 275, 284, 287, 290, 291, 300, 303, 318, 326, 328, 332, 334, 335, 352. See also Constantinople

Bznuni family, 89, 142, 205, 255 Bznunik', 341 (Map C5) Cadmos, 85-87, 95, 133, 139, 359-361 Caesar, 155, 158 Caesarea, 45, g4֊g5, 155> 161> ։84> 197, 221, 226, 228, 229, 232, 270, 274- 29։. 3OO> 321> 329՛ 334also Mazhak Cambyses, 151 Canaanites, 104, 133, 137 Cappadocia, 94, 119, 221, 228, 365 Cardos, 98 Carinus, 227 Carus, 23, 42, 227 Caspian sea, 256 Caspians, 195, 240 Cassius, 28, 155, 165 Caucasus, 82, 135, 145, 159, 196, 261, 282, 364, 365 Caves of Mane, 42, 45, 248, 249 (Map C3) Caynan, 72, 74, 75 Celestine, 335 Centaurs, 21, 25, 207. See also Piurid Cephalion, 14, 76, 102 Cerasos of Argos, 226 Chalcedon, council (451), 4, 6 Chaldaeans, 34, 67, 68, 76, 84, 104, 105, 109, 217 Chaniuk', 224 (Map B4) Charrae, 28 Chavakh, 140 (Map B5) Chenbakur, 367, 368 China, 52, 231, 367 Chinese, 230, 231 Chion the Laconian, 302 Chor, 211, 265 Christ, 13, 18, 39, no, 164, 167-175, 238, 239, 250-252, 255, 266, 268, 293. 335> 354 Ch'rmes, 206 (Map C4) Chroesus, 29, 34, 148-151 Chronicon Pascale, 23 Chuash, 139 (Map C6) Cilicia, 224, 24g, 259, 265, 266, 365 Cilicians, 366 Cimmeria, 120 Claudius, 177 Cleopatra, 152, 15g, 160 Clitostratos, of Rhodes, 226 Coloneia, 134 (Map B3) 391

Index Constantine, 23, 36, 37, 41-44, 233-235> 24°> 242-245> 257> 29° Constantinople, 23, 25, 37, 47, 48, 242-245, 291, 329, 335; council (381), 47. See also Byzantium Constantius, father of Contantine, 233 Constantius, son of Constantine, 23, 257, 258, 260, 264, 265 Crassus, 28, 154 Crete, 96, 102, 148 Ctesiphon, 217, 233, 315, 326 Cyclades islands, 223 Cyril, of Alexandria, 49, 335 Cyril, of Jerusalem, 265 Cyrus, 22, 34, 113, 115, 123, 149, 151

Damascus, 153, 162, 290, 363 Damasus, 291 Danan, 333 Daniel, Armenian priest, 267, 278 Daniel, Syrian bishop, 12, 48, 318-320 Danube, 223 Dara, 305, 309 Daranalik', 248, 302 (Map C3) Dareh, king of Parthia, 216, 366. See also Darius Darius, 24, 25, 140, 147, 150, 151, 178, 180, 187, 189, 244. See also Dareh Darius Vshtaspean, 163 Dat, 137, 147 Datake, 205 David, father of Mariam. 45, 228 David, king, 59, 105, 262 David the Philosopher, 4, 6, 15, 79 Dazhgoynk', 120 Decius, 36, 220, 222 Dembavend, 126 Demetrius, 131, 364, 365 Dedkis, 110 Derjan, 328, 333 (Map C4) Defkiwlos, 106 Dimak'sean family, 188, 306 Diocletian, 35, 36, 42, 43, 222, 227, 23b 233- 234 Diodore (Diodorus Siculus), 57, 254 Diodore, of Tarsus, 336 Dionysius, son of Cleopatra, 153 Dipenes, 21, 148 Diwts‘?nkets‘, 78 Domet, see Domitian 392

Domitian, 11, 197 Draskhanakert, 246 (Map B6) Druasp, 205 Dstrik, 348 Duin (town), 261 (Map B6) Dzirav, Plain, 19, 46, 296 (near Mt. Npat) Dziwnakan family, 138 Dzor, 140 (Map B6)

Eber, 74 Ecbatana, 240, 242 Edessa, 30, 39, 40, 146, 165, 167, 169-171, 175, 176, 181, 222, 246, 320, 334, 337; archives of, 13, 27, 34, 40, 165, 178, 181 Egeria, 135 (Map B5) Egypt- 3> 33- 67- 75- ^49- 154- 158-160, 176, 218, 337 Egyptians, 69, 71, 81, 197, 198 Ekeleats՛, 202, 206, 249, 255, շցց, 30g, 321. 333 (Map C3) Ek'tipon, 157 Eleazar Khorohbut, 217 Eleazar Maccabaeus, ig, 145 Eleutheropolis, 168 Elianan, 232 Eliazar P'arokh, 363 Elijah, 288, 351 Elisha, 255, 288, 351 Elishe, 5, 6, 20, 51 Elon, 105 Emesa, 335 Emran, 215 Enanos, 161, 162, 208 Endzak՛, 107 Enoch, patriarch, 72 Enoch, pupil of Mesrop, 333 Enos, 26, 71, 72 Ephesus, 335; council (431), 2, 4g, 335. ՅՅ6 Ephrem, 275 Epiphanius, Armenian monk, 275 Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, 14. 79 Epiphanius, Edessan teacher, 48, 320 Ep't'ayi, 105 Erakhnavu, 205 Eraskh, R., go (Map B5-C7). See also Araxes Eraskhadzor, 247 Erast, go

Index Garni, 92, 246, 247 (Map B6) Garnik, descendant of Gelam, 92, J37> J47> 25o Garnik, finder of Gregory’s relics, 45 Gaylatu, lake, 206 (Map C5) Gazavon, son of Hrahat, 344 Gazavon, son of Spandarat, 288, 305, 309, 311, 312, 315, 323 Gel, Mt., 91, 363 (Map B6) Gelam (person), 75, 76, 90-92, 133, 137, *47> 359- 361 Gelam, lake, 185, 308 (Map B6) Gelami, 92 Gelarkuni, 91, 146 (Map B6) Gelasius, 291 Gelmants*, 195 Gen, R., 203 (Map C6) Genesis (forest), 182, 183 Gentiles, 169 Georgia, 37,41,43, 44, 119, 123, 139, 155, 184, 191, 237-240. 258, 322, 333 Georgians, 47, 159, 186, 237-239, 248, 282, 285, 321 Gerezmank', 88 Germanicus, 34, 165 Germans, 164 Gideon, 105 Gin,138 Gind, bishop of Derjan, 328, 333 Gind Slkuni, 275 Faustos Buzandats'i, 12, 16, 20, 29, 40, Gisak, 186, 188 45748, 50, 54 Giut, 333 Firmilian, 16, 35, 42, 221 Glaphyra, 243 Florian, 34, 223, 224 Gnel, son of Trdat, 47, 275-279, 281 Forum of Constantinople, 244 Gnel Andzevats’i, 300 Four Rhapsodies, 14, 15 Gnel Gnuni, 28, 156, 157 Gnt'uni family, 104, 137, 161 Gabal, 137 Gnuni family, 112, 138, 306 Gabelean family, 137 Gog, 111 Gabianus, see Gabinius Goliath, 262 Gabinius, 28, 154 Golt'n, 11, 120, 121, 190, 195, 203, Gag. 257 310- 333’ 349 (MaP C6) Galatia, 163 Golt'nets'i family, 143 Galatians, 131 Gomer, 84, 92. See also Gamer Galilee, 159 Gorak, 106 Gallus, 220 Gorgias, 15, 79 Gamer, 74. See also Gomer Gorgon os, 296 Gardman, 140, 306, 333 (Map B6) Goths, 23, 223, 226, 285 Gargar, 140, 236 (Map B7) Got'oniel, 105 Gargarats'ik*, 322 Gratian, 286 Garjoyl Malkhaz, 262 Great Marsh, see Metsamawr

Erewel, Plain, 308 (in Vanand) Erez, 152, 202 (Map C3) Eruand, the Short-lived, 111,210, 211 Eruand II, 25, 28, 112, 146, 178-189, 191, 247, 366 Eruandakert, 31, 53, 183 (in Arsharunik’) Eruandashat, 28, 181, 182, 288 (Map B5) Eruandavan, 186 Eruaz, 179-182, 189 Erzerum, 7. See also Karin, Theodosiopolis Esebon, 105 Ethiopian(s), 18, 20, 75, 151, 243; Ethiopian army at Trojan war, 107, 124,125 Euphrates, 154, 155, 158, 165, 227, 266, 302, 332 Europe, 132, 258 Eusebius, 5, 13-17, 21, 22. 26, 32-36, 39> 53. 56> 58, H6 Eustathius, 245 Euthalius, bishop of Edessa, 246 Euthalius, brother of Sophy, 45, 228 Evagoras, 15, 150 Ewpalmos, 106 Eznik, 334

393

Index Greece, 2, 68, 152, 197, 205, 217, 223, 272, 282, 338, 339. See also Byzantine empire, Hellas Greeks, 12, 18, 57, 67, 69, 76, 79, 92, 113, 146, 151, 163, 209, 216, 217, 222-224, 259, 260, 264, 265, 272, 274, 280, 281, 283-286, 288, 291, 292՛ 295-298> 3O2> 3°4> 3°7> 311> 3t2, 315, 318, 321, 324, 326, 340, 343» 347- $ee a^so Hellenes Gregory, father of Gregory Nazianzenus, 43, 244, 245 Gregory, of Nyssa, 291 Gregory Magistros, 5 Gregory Nazianzenus, 3, 20, 38, 39, 291 Gregory the Illuminator, 4, 18, 29, 31, 37, 38, 41-45, 46, 48, 165, 166, 220, 22 j, 228, 229, 232, 239, 245, 247-25o’ 254’ 256> 267, 27°> 274. 293’31O> 329> 346’ 35° Grigoris, 255, 256 Gugarats'ik*, 140 Gugark', 258, 333 (Map B5) Gushar, 133, 140, 226 Gzak, 107 Habel, 318, 319 Hadamakert, 138 (Map D6) Hadrian, 198, 201 Halys, 150 Ham, 17, 33, 74, 75,78, 79,81 Hamadan, 200 Hamazasp Mamikonean. brother of Vardan, 4 Hamazasp Mamikonean, father of Vardan, 4, 315-317, 324 Hamazaspean, 331 Hark*, 86, 89, 359, 361 (Map C5) Harmay, 75, 76, 91, 92, 359, 361 Harran, 176, 222 Hashteank*, 144, 15g, 176, 205, 257, 278, 288 (Map C4) Hats'ekk*, 309 (Map C4) Havanak, 106 Havuk, 342 Havuni family, 138 Hawroy, 107 Hayk, 14, 53, 54, 74, 76, 81, 84-88, 9°. 92’ 93’ 11 L ։22. J32’ J34> ’38’ 141, 142, 211, 284, 358-361 Haykak, 106, 113 394

Haykak (“the other Haykak”), 111 Haykashen, 86 Haykazunk*, 209 Hayots* Dzor, 88 (Map C5) Hayr, in time of Tiran, 269 Hayr, in time of Valarshak, 13g Hebrews, 34, 81, 104, 243, 251, 257; Hebrew historians, 70. See also Jews Helen, of Adiabene, 26, 35, 44, 176, 177 Helen, mother of Constantine, 233, 242 Heli, 105 Heliopolis, in Hellas, 301; in Lebanon, 2go Hellas, 52, 14g, 151, 301. See also Greece. Hellenes, 68, 6g, 107, 125, 150. See also Greeks Hellespont, 150 Hephaistos, 11, 21, 33, 81, 14g, 152, 226 Her, 17g (Map C6) Heracles, 21, 24, 123, 140, 141, 148, ]52 Heraclius, 5g Herod, 15, 18, 26-28, 35, 155, 157-162, 164, 165, 167, 260 Herodias, 35, 167 Herodotus, 15, 22, 132 Heshay, 25g Hezekiah, 112 Hippolytus, 15, 146 Hmayeak, of Ashots*, 342 Hmayeak Mamikonean, 331 Hnarakert, 140 (Map B6) Homer, 21, 124 Honorius, 303 Hoy, 107 Hracheay, 30, 110 Hrahat, 303, 324, 344 Hrant, 106 Hrazdan, R., g2, 147 (Map B6) Hruden, 126 Huns, 237, 333 Hyrcanus, 28, 2g, 153, 155-157, 160, 161 Iberia (Georgia), 147; (Spain). 141 Iberians, 140 Iconium, 2gi

Index Idumaeans, 157 Ilium, 124 Inak, 268 India, 37, 42, 102, 220, 234, 245 lollas, 24 Iraq, 59 Isaac, 104, 215, 363 Isfahan, 293 Israel, 17,18, 79,256, 351,353 Italy, 2,338

Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, 18, 46, 246, 259, 260 Jacob, son of Isaac, 104 Jael, 19 Jalay, 322 Japheth, 17, 358, 360. See also Yapheth Jehu, 351 Jeremiah, archdeacon, 348 Jeremiah, bishop of Albania, 322 Jeremiah, prophet, 17, 110, 353 Jericho, 27, 28, 154 Jerusalem, 44, 112, 154, 156, 157-159, 168, 169, 171, 201, 242, 245> 335 Jesus, see Christ Jews, 19, 31, 57,112, 153, 155-157, 161, 170-172, 201, 255, 293; Jewish colonies in Armenia, 27-29, 47, 154, ։57> 191, 21 b 293- See also Hebrews John, bishop of Antioch, 335 John, bishop of Persia, 246 John, of Ekeleats*, 321, 334 John Catholicos, 3 John Chrysostom, 37, 318, 330 John the Baptist, 35, 167, 255 Jonathan, 322 Joseph, nephew of Herod, 28, 164 Joseph, son of Isaac, 81 Joseph, of Palin, 321, 334 Joseph, of Vayots'dzor, 34g Josephus, 15-17, 22, 24, 25-31, 33, 35> 42» 56-58, 7b 146, 154. 164, 177 Joshua, 104, 106, 351 Jovian, 217, 270 Juda, bishop of Jerusalem, 44, 242 Judaea, 153, 158, 159, 161, 162 Judas Maccabaeus, 19, 153 Judges, biblical, 18, 257

Julay (Julfa), 120 (Map C6) Julian the Apostate, 38, 46, 217, 265-268, 270 Julitta, 42, 45 Julius Africanus, 13, 15, 27, 146 Justinian I, 51, 59 Justinian II, 60 Juvenal, of Jerusalem, 335 Kahat‘, 104 Kamsar, 241, 242, 246, 285 Kamsarakan family, 165, 166, 183, 219, 287, 28g, гдг, 2gg, 312, 316, 344 K'ananidas, 104 Kangark', 140 (Map B6) K'ardzam, ig6 Karen Pahlav, 166, 215, 216, 218-220 Karenean family, 165, 21g, 220, 241. See also Karen Pahlav Karin, 50, 52, 274, 331, 342 (Map C4). See also Erzerum, Theodosiopolis Kafnam, 367 Karnamak, 16 K'asal, R., 154, 210 (Map B6). See also Khasal K‘ayal, 74, 76. Kaypak, 107 Kenan, 306 K'etura, 130, 215 Khad, 24, 43, 274, 287-290 Khaduni family, 319 Khak'an, 241, 245 Khakh, 299 (Map B3) Khaltik', 134, 224 (Map B4) Khasal, R., 210. See also K’asal Khazars, 52, 5g, 210, 211 Kholots'im, 34g (in Vayots' dzor) Khor, 89, 137 Khorasan, 296 Khordzean, 322 (Map C4) Khoren, 1 Khorkhoruni family, 89, 262, 306 Khorohbut, 16, 216, 217 Khorshakunik*, 120 Khosran Artsruni, 167, 177 Khosren, see Khosran Artsruni Khosrov, father of Trdat, 16, 41, 42, 200, 211, 213, 214, 218-225, 367 Khosrov, king of Eastern Armenia, 43> 47> 5°. 3O4~3°9> З^-З1?- 323> 347 395

Index Khosrov, son of Trdat, 233, 257-261, 263, 264, 367 Khosrov Gardmanats'i, 325 Khosrovidukht, 224, 232, 235, 247 Khram, 120 (Map C6) Khurs, 333 Khuzastan, 292 Kirakos Gandzakets'i, 6 Klarjk', 240 (Map B5) Kleisurae, 143 Kogayovit, 278, 298 (Map C6) Koi, 135, 145 (Map B5) Kolb (province), 140 (Map B6) Kolb (village), 334 (Map B5) Konak, 367, 368 Korchek', 209 (Map D5) Kordrik', 196 Korduats'i family, 143 Korduk', 94, 177, 220 (Map D5) Koriun, 4-6, 16, 20, 41, 43, 44, 47-49, 51.334 Kornak, Persian general, 227 Kofnak, son of Pachoych, 111 Koshm, 166, 215 Kronos, 81 Kuash, 276-278 Kukayarich, 342 (location unknown) Kura, R., 139, 191, 211, 23g, (Map B5֊B7) K'ush, 74, 81 Kushans, 93, 131, 213, 215, 219, 220, 364, 366, 367 Kvaxares, 110 Labdon, 105 Labubna, 15, 16, 35, 39, 40, 44, 178 Lacedemonians, 150 Lamech, 73 Lampafis, 105 Lamparites, 105 Lapitha, 21, 25 Lapiths, 207 Lawost'enis, 106 Laz, 44 Lazar P'arpets'i, 3, 6, 12, 16, 20, 33, 45. 48-5 >. 53 Lazica, 134 (Map B4) Lebanon,290 Lek, 297, 299 Leo, 6 Leontius, bishop, 245, 246 Leontius, deacon, 328, 333, 334 396

Lesser Chronicles, 6 Levi, 104 Levond, 3 Libya, 132 Libyans, 140 Licinius, 18, 227, 242, 243 Locrians, 151 Longobards, 301 Lucianos, 209. See also Lucius Lucius, 34. See also Lucianos Lucullus, 27, 28 Luke, 18, 163 Lullus, 153 Lydia, 22, 148-151 Lydians, 150 Lysanias, 167 Macarius, 245 Maccabees, 19, 20, 351 Macedonians, 33, 34, 81, 129-134, 2։ 5. 363> 364 Macedonius, 47, 287, 290 Malalas, 22, 23 Malaliel, 72 Malkhaz, 137 Malkhazan, 179 (Map C6) Mambre, 3-6 Mamgon, 230, 231, 235, 236 Mamik, 367, 368 Mamikonean family, 31, 42, 46, 48, 56, 59, 60, 229, 236, 277, 316, 344, 348, 367 Mamilos, 105 Mamit'os, 105 Manachihr, 237, 258-260, 268 Mananali, 307 (Map C4) Manavaz, 89 Manavazean family, 8g, 142, 255 Mandakuni family, 42, 46, 142, 225 Mandu, ig4 Mane, 45, 248 Manech, 342 Manetho, 15, 14g Manov, see Arsham Manue, igg Manuel, 315 Mar, of Tsop‘k‘, 257 Mar Abas Catina, 12, 14, 54, 55, 82-84, 96- ։°2> 1O7> 115- ’45- 357 Mar Ihab, 167 Marakert, 121 Marand, 202 (Map C6-7)

Index

Marats' marg, i86 Marats'ik', 139 Marcionites, 212 Mariam, 42, 45, 228 Marinus, 167 Marisa, 157 Mark, bishop of Jerusalem. 202 Mark, evangelist, 338 Mark, hermit, 228 Marmet (Artamet), 185 (Map C5) Marseak, 363 Marsian doctors (Marsi), 234 Mary (BVM), 335 Masada, 157 Mash tots, 146. See also Mesrop Masis, Mt., 91, 122, 189, igo, 195, 203, 278, 282, 363 (Map C6). See also Ararat Mask'aleos, 105 Massagetae, 151, 240 Matathias, 19, 351 Mawdakis, no Maximian, 36, 222, 233 Maximianos, bishop of Constanti­ nople, 334 Maximin, 36 Maximina, 233, 234 Mazdaeans, 271, 282; Mazdaean religion, 294, 324 Mazhak, 95,134, 135, 151, 153-155See also Caesarea Mazhan, 194-196, 198, 213 Medes, 34, 78, 93, 101, no, 113,120, 139,186,187, 362, 364, 365 Media (Mark'), 109, 117, 119, 121, 139, 180, 202, 206, 310 (Map C7) Mediterranean, 209, 258, 265 Mehendak, 269 Mehrujan, 46, 286, 293-298, 323 Melitene, 328, 335 (Map C3) Melitos, 6 Memnon, 335 Merod, 84 Mesopotamia, 29, 48, 152, 159-162, 164, 167,176, 180, 181, 184, 222, 259- 266, 285, 304, 318, 320, 334, 358, 366 Mesopotamians, 201 Mesrop (Mashtots'), 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 16, 2O> 24. 25’ 37. 39- 4Ն 43- 44, 47֊49> 51, 309, 310, 314, 318-322, 326-336, 342’ 345’ 346, 348, 349. See also

Mashtots' Mestrayim, 74, 75, 81 Metellus, 153 Methusela, 72, 73 Metsamawr, R., 133, 136, 190 (Map B6) Metsrayim, 33, 75 Miandak, 142 Midas, 34 Mihr, 271 Mihran, 37, 237-239, 258, 259, 261, 262 Mihrdat, brother-in-law of Tigran II, 184, 185 Mihrdat, of Iberia, 140, 147 Milan, 23, 303 Minotaur, 21, 31, 179 Mithridates, bdeashkh of Georgia, *47 Mithridates, satrap of Darius, see Mihrdat of Iberia Mithridates, of Pontus, 27, 151, 153-154; his son, Mithridates, 153, ։54- 155 Mit'feos, 106 Mkhitar, of Ani, 5 Mkhit'ar, of Ayrivank', 6 Mogpashte, 189 Mokats'i family, 143, 306, 324 Mokk', 324, 325 (Map C5) Mopsuestia, 23, 265, 335 Morp'iwlik, 134 Moses, bishop of Georgia, 322 Moses, philosopher, 3 Moses, prophet, 18, 77, 104, 250, 260, 297. 351 Moses Daskhurants'i, 5 Moses Khorenats'i, self-description, 65, S36—339. 345also Intro­ duction, passim Movsisik, 342 Mrtsuin, 366 Mrul, Plain, 263 (Map D4) Mshak, 95 Mt'in, Mt., 140 (in Kangark') Mtskheta, 238 (Map B6) Mtsurn, 55, 357, 365 (Map C4) Muawiya, 53 Muratsean family, 139, 184. 194 Murts', R., 210 (Map B4) Mushe, 322 Mushel, bishop of Balas, 333 397

Index Mushel Mamikonian, 298 Nabat, 351 Nabog, 165 Nakhchavan, on Araxes, 120, 139, 194 (Map C6) Nakhchavan, near Eruandashat, 289 Nakor, 74 Nazianz, 291 Nazinik, 24, 207 Nebuchadnezzar, 30, 34, iog-112, 140, 362 Nectanebo, 24, 149, 151 Nectar, 291 Nerseh, descended from Vahagn, 123 Nerseh, son of Artashes III of Parthia, 173 Nerseh, son of Kamsar, 285, 288 Nerseh, son of Shapuh I, 245 Nerses, son of Gisak, 188 Nerses I, patriarch, 46-48, 270, 273-276, 279, 281, 283, 285-290, 295-300; 309- 313’ 329 Nerses Chichrakats'i, 326 Nerses Claiensis (Shnorhali), 7 Nerva, 197 Nestorius, 335 Nicaea, 42, 244-246, 249 Nichomachus, 228 Nicomedia, 233, 243 Nile, 337 Nimrod, 74, 75, 81, 127, 128 Nineveh, 56, 82, 93, 97, 99, 101, 102, 109, 173, 362; archives in, 12, 14, 54. 83 Ninos, 3, 33, 73, 74-77, 93, 96, 97, 101, 108, 361 Ninuas, 74, 101, 102, 104 Niobe, 11,21, 103 Nisibis, 13, 27, 34, 40, 54, 82, 84, 136, 144-146, 165, 177, 246, 259, 281, 347 (^P D4) Niwkar Mades, 19, 92, 93 Noah, 17,71,73, 75, 77 Nonnus, 21, 22 Norayr, 106 Nor K'alak', 210, 211. See also Valarshapat Nor Shirak, 365 Npat, Mt., 297 (Map C5) Nuard, 107 Numerian, 227 398

Nune, 37, 41,44, 238-240, 248 Nyssa, 291

Odysseus, 21, 25, 207 Olakan, 235 (Map C4) Olympias, mother of Alexander, 24, 25. 129 Olympias, wife of Arshak, 276, 280 Olympic games, 301 Olympiodorus, 14, 15, 77, 79, 221 Olympius, 13, 16, 35, 189 Olympus, 78 Opiza, 59 Op‘ratios, 106 Orduni family, 89, 141, 255 Origen, 221 Ormizd (god), 225. See also Aramazd Ormizd, son of Shapuh I, 245, 257, 260, 265 Ormizdukht, 294 Ort‘k‘, 283 (near Arshakavan) Oskiolay, 120 (Map C7) Ostan, 119, 138 Ozomn, 180 Pachoych, 111 Pacorus, 28, 156, 158 Pahlav (family), 166, 215, 217-219, 228, 247, 316 Pahlav (region), 214, 220, 247, 250 P‘ak‘arat, 30 Paladium, 244 P'alek, 174 Palephatos, 15, 216 Palestine, 28, 29, 57, 82, 151-153, 155, 156, 167, 171, 201, 208, 265, 337 Palestinians, 161, 197, 198 Palin, 321 (Map C3) Pannias, 106 Pap, 47, 279, 280, 284, 286, 287, 292—296, 298-301, 367 Pap, son of Yusik, 26g Papag, 217 P'arakan, 363 P'arakhot, go (Map C5) P'afandzem, 277, 280, 2g2, 2g3 Paret, 106 Pargev Amatuni, 315 Parkhar, 135 (Map B4) P'arnak, 106 Parnavaz, 111, 362 P'afnerseh, 270

Index Philemon, 15, 216 P'arokh, go, 363 Philip, apostle, 169 P'arokh t, 363 Philip, emperor, 42, 218, 220 P'aros, 111 Philip, tetrarch, 167 Paroyr, 108-109, no Philip the Macedonian, 24, 129 P'arsman, 186 Philo, 17, 20-22, 31, 32 Parthia, 27, 132 Phlegonios, 15, 150 Parthians, 15, 18, 28, 34, 81, 109, Phocians, 151 129-132, 200, 214-216, 218-220, Phoenicia, 167 247. 357» 363-368 Phrygia, 133, 134, 223 P'asayelos, 156 Pisa, 25, 301 Pasiphae, 21,179 Piurid, Centaur, 127 Pask'am, 112, 113, 141 Plato, Edessan archivist, 48, 320 Patizhahar, 195 Plato, philosopher, 20, 22, 31, 124, Patronice, 44 Paul, bishop of Emesa, 335 127» 338 Pluto, 21, 338 Paul, saint, 251, 338 Pneumatomachoi, 287, 290, 291 Pausanias, 24, 25 Polycrates, 15,149 Payap Kaaleay, 94, 95 Polyhistor, 14, 70 P'aytakaran, 256, 257, 259 (Map C7) Pompey, 27, 28, 153, 154 Pegasus, 21, 24, 204 Pontius Pilate, 27, 154, 167, 172, 173 Peloponnese, 226 Pontus, 13, 27, 133՜135> M5> Penelope, 21, 25, 207 153, 163, 181, 224, 243; Pontic Sea, Perch, 107 82, 94, 141, 147, 218 (Map B3) Perge, 155 Porphyry, 15, 20, 216 Perithous, 25, 207 P'fatinis, 106 Pefitiades, 106 Peroz, king of Parthia, 204, 208, 20g, P'favortis, no Priam, 107, 125 216, 366 Primary History, 53-56, 357-367 Peroz, of Gardman, 306 Peroz, shah, 5, 6 Probus, 23, 224, 226 Peroz, subject of Nerseh, 173 Proclus, 49, 335 Perozamat, 21g, 241 Procopius, 54 Persia, 4, 37, 147, 164, 167, 168, Prometheus, 81 Proteus, 24 J73֊։75> j89’ ։95> i98> ։99- 202. Proverbs, 321 213, 228, 231-234, 237, 240, 241, 246, 257, 265, 270, 271, 284, 294, Ps.-Callisthenes, 2, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 317, 326, 340, 346 31 Ptolemais, 27, 153 Persians, 12, 19, 25, 29, 31, 67, 69, 81, 92, 109, 126, 141, 156, 158,165, Ptolemy, son of Menneus, 154 166, 180, 187, 189, 197, 200, 201, Ptolemy Cleopater, 159 208, 213, 216, 218, 219, 223, 224, Ptolemy Dionysius, father of 232, 258-260, 263, 264, 266, 268, Cleopatra, 152, 159 Ptolemy Philadelphus, 22, 52, 67, 120 273. 281 > 284- 296, 297. 3°3> 304. 311, 312, 321,323,326, 343, 344, Pythian oracle, 150 347.349. 364 P'erur, 164 Quintus, 223 Peter, of Alexandria, 16, 35, 222 Peter, saint, 338 Ragav, 74 Petra, 167 Raphaim, 79 Pharaoh, 18, 260 Rastsohun, 217. See also Barsuma Pharos, 24 Rhipsime, 6, 37, 43, 238, 248 Phayllus, 32 Rinon, 227 399

Index Roboam, 351 Rodanus, 23, 275 Romans, 15, 19, 28, 57, 58, 130, 154, 156, 158-161, 163, 167, 170-172, 181, 185, 189, 193, 197, 198, 201, 204, 208, 212, 216, 218, 220, 227, 241, 243, 266, 272, 273, 328 Rome, 2, 18, 27, 148, 154, 157, 162, 165, 227, 235, 242-245, 291, 300, 3°3- 335> 339; New Rome, 244 Rop'i, 209 Ropsean family, 209 Rostom Sagdjik, 141 Rshtuni family, 28, 143, 156, 237, 258, 267; Rshtunik' (Map C5) Rstom, 306 Rufinus, calligrapher, 48, 320 Rufinus, church historian, 44 Rufus, 201 Sagastan, 323 Sahak, patriarch, 2, 3, 6-8, 18, 25, 31, 38- 39. 49. 5b ЗЧ-З^. 32։֊324. 326-336, 339-348 Sahak, prince of Armenia, 60 Sahak, the aspet, 303, 306, 307, 309. 316 Sahak Bagratuni, Moses’ patron, 4, 60, 65 Sahakanoysh, 315 Salamut, 269 Salay, 74 Samosata, 158, 320 (Map D3) Samson, 32, 105, 141, 200 Samuel, antipatriarch, 38, 51, 342, 343- 345. 346 Samuel of Ani, 5 Samuel, О. T., 105, 27g Samuel Mamikonean, 307, 308, 312 Sanasar, 17, 112, 143, 325 Sanatruk, king, 40, 55, 171, 174, 177-180, 184, 187, 357, 366 Sanatruk, prince in Albania, 46, 256, 257, 259, 261 Sanatruk, servant of Trdat, 256 Sandukht, 174, 175 Sanota, 177, 178 Sap'atia, 162, 208 Sarah,215 Sardanapalos, 34, 84, 104, 106, 108, 109 Sarhang, 362 400

Saria, 162 Sasan, 199, 213, 217, 218 Sasanian empire, 46. See also Persia, Persians Sasanians, 324 Satan, 128, 288 Satinik, 11, 122, 190, 192, 193, 195, 200 Saul, 105, 279 Savarsh, 106 Sawsarmos, 110 Scamadros, 15, 150 Scamander, 21, 302 Scaurus, 28, 153 Scyllas, 21, 148 Scythians, 151 Sebaste, 229 Sebeos, 50, 53-56, 357, 368 Sedekiah, 18, 272, 351 Seleucids, ig Seleucus, son of Antiochus Sidetes, 365 Seleucus Nicanor, 12g, 363 Sem, son of Noah, 17, 74, 75, 78, 7g, 81; son of Xisuthra, 80 Semiramis, 3, 24, 43, 76, 96-104, 106-108, 144, 157, 361, 362 Senate, 158, 172, 173 Senek'erim (Sennacherib), 17, 34, 112, 134, 138, 362 Senekia, 161, 208 Sep'etsul family, 13g Serapis, 338 Seraption, 235 Seruk, 74 Seth, 71 Severus, 222, 244 Shabit', 310, 333 Shahak, 300, 303 Shahapivan, 278 (Map C5) Shalgomk', 332 (Map B4) Shalita, 275 Shambat Bagarat I, 30, 111 Shambat Bagarat II, 30, 132, 133, 136, 143, 145, 208 Shamshagram, 168 Shapuh, son of Yazkert I, 51, 323-326, 367 Shapuh I, son of Artashir, 42, 225, 229. 230. 235. 237. 240-242. 245 Shapuh II, 16, 23-25, 47, 217, 25g, 261, 263, 265, 270-273, 280-286,

Index

(Shapuh II cont’d) 291-296, 301, 302, 304, 305, 312, 3’4 Sharashan, 143 Sharay, 90, 133, 135, 140 Sharur, 121 Shavarsh, 288, 315 Shavarshan, 174, 195. See also Artaz Shavash, 362 Shavasp Artsruni, 325 Shepherds (Egyptian dynasty), 81 Shergir, 297 Shirak, 90, 246, 299, 306 (Map B5) Shresh, 210 Sidon,160 Silon, 28, 158 Silvester, 36, 44, 235, 245; Acta Silvestri, 7, 36-38, 44 Sim, Mt., 80, 112, 143, 221, 235 (Map C4) Simon, apostle, 173-176 Simon Maccabaeus, 153 Sinope, 13, 27, 34, 146, 181 Sirat‘, 84 Siriad, 26 Sisak, 91, 133, 139 Sisakan, 52, 58, 91; Sisakan family, 94. ’43 Sisera, 19 Siuni family, 277, 284 Siunik*, 6, 52, 58, 91, 146, 206, 256, 272> Յ03. 3°5> 310’ Յ22 (MaP C6) Skayordi, 107, 109, 112 Slak*. 142 Slkuni (orSlkuni) family, 142, 224, 235.236,275 Sink, 235 Smbat, father of Bagarat, 233 Smbat, son of Bagarat, 296, 298, 331 Smbat, tutor of Artashes II, 19, 179-181, 184-189, 192, 194-196, 206, 207 Smbatanoysh, 179 Smbatavan, 179. See also Bayberd Smbaturhi, orSmbatuhi, 180, 206 Socrates, Athenian philosopher, 36, 25’ Socrates, church historian, 22, 36-38, 44 Sohund, Mt., 202 (Map D7) Solomon, 256 Solon, 150

Sophocles, 21 Sophy, 45, 228 Sosios, 158, 159 Sostomos, 106 Spandarat Arsharuni, 342 Spandarat Kamsarakan, 288, 295, 297,299.3°6 Spanduni family, 138 Spaniards, 131, 172 Sparet'os, 105 Sper, 179, 207, 306, 333 (Map B4) Sp'eros, 105 Spudaioi, 313 Stahr, 216 Stephen, of Lvov, 25 Stephen, of Siunik*, 45 Stephen, of Taron, 5, 53 Stephen Orbelean, 6 Strategion, 244 Sur, 106 Sura, 306 Suren Khofkhoruni, 306-308 Suren Pahlav, or Surenean, 165, 166. 215, 216, 218-220, 250, 317, 340, 344. Surmak, 51, 340, 341,345 Susafis, 105 Syria, 28, 82, 132, 153-156, 158, 162, 167, 198, 208, 307, 327, 364-366 Syrians, 94, 163, 201, 216, 302, 329

Tachat, 226, 232 Tachaturhi, 312 Tachikastan, 227 Tachiks, 365 Tacitus, 23, 34, 223, 224 Taklad, 84 Tambat, 120 (Map C6) T'arat'a, 165 Tarawn, 80, 144, 148, 221, 236, 255, 270, 288, 30g, 322, 336, 348, 34g (Map C4) T'aray, 74 Tarban, 80 T'arsis (Tarshish), 104 Tarsus, 224 Tashir, 140, 333 (Map B6) Tateawn, 206 (Map C5) Tatik, 34g Taurus, 143, 185, 24g Tawnos Konkojeros, 104, 10g Tayk', 135. 307 (Map B5) 401

Index Ter, 322 Terentius, 295, 296, 300, 301 T'etalia, 82 T'etalians, 363, 366 Tewtamos, 106, 107, 124 Tewteos, 106 Thaddaeus, 30, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 170, 171, 221, 248 Thebes, 149 Theodore, of Mopsuestia, 49, 335 Theodosiopolis, 331, ^2. See also Erzerum, Karin Theodosius, general, 276, 286 Theodosius I, the Great, 23, 290, 295, 296- 299-3o4 Theodosius II, the Less, 321, 327, 328> 332> 339 Theodotius, 335 Theon, 15, 21, 22 Thersites, 21, 273 Thessalians, 150 Thessalonica, 23, 300 Thomas, apostle, 169, 170 Thomas Artsruni, 3, 4, 6 Thrace, 150, 227 Thracians, 164 Thule, 302 Tiberius, 24, 164, 171, 172 Tigran I, 19, 111-J22, 284, 366 Tigran II, the Great, 15, 27-30, 35, 43, 147, 151-161, 184, 211, 293, 366 Tigran III, 208-210, 213 Tigranakert, 25, 47, 119. 281-284 (Map C4) Tigranuhi, 114, 117-119 Tigris, 143 T‘il, 152, 249, 255, 299 (Map C3) Timon, 163 T'inews, 106 Tir, 43 Tiran, brother of Artashes, 366 Tiran, son of Artavazd, 196-198, 203-208 Tiran, son of Khosrov the Less, 18, 24, 46, 47, 264-272, 276-278, 367 Tiran, son of Tigran I, 123 T'iras, 74, 75, 84, 92 Tiridates I, 27 Tiridates the Great, see Trdat, saint Tirit', 47, 266, 276-281 Tiruk, 342 Titan(s), 78, 79, 83, 87, 94 402

Titus, 181, 201 Titus Antoninus (Antoninus Pius), 160, 208 Titus Justus, 160 Tmorik‘, 196, 268 (Map D5) Tobias, 30, 40, 170. See also Tubia T'ola, 105 T'ordan, 45, 152, 250, 264, 267 (Map C3) T'orgom, 74, 84, 86, 92 Town of Altars, see Bagavan Toyr, 188 Trajan, 198 Trdat, saint, 3, 16, 24, 37, 41-46, 55, 89, 129, 183, 200, 213, 222, 223, 225-227, 231-237, 254-258- 293302,310,317, 345, 358, 367 Trdat, son of Tiran, 266, 275-277 Trdat Bagratuni, 24, 25, 206, 207, 325 Truni family, 188 Tsalik, Mt., 278 (Map C5) Tsans, 23 Tsob, 140, (Map B6) Ts'olak, 90 Ts'olakert, 90 (Map B5) Tsop‘k‘, 142, 236, 249, 257, 261, 262, 267, 307 (Map C 3) Tsowdek', 140 (Map D4) Ts‘rawnk‘, 80 Tubia, 208. See also Tobias Tuh, 210 Turk', 121 Tyre, 25, 160

Ult, Springs of, 195 (East of L. Sevan?) Umayyad Caliphate, 59 Urartian inscriptions, 12 Urnayr, 298 Ute, 220. See also Uti Uti, 140, 184, 185 (Map B6). See a Iso Ute Vache Artsruni, 342 Vahagn, 21, 31, 43, 123, 142, 148 Vahan, father of Vahe, 124 Vahan Amatuni, hazarapet, 349 Vahan Amatuni, sparapet, 237, 258, 25g, 261, 262, 272 Vahan Aravelean, 306-308 Vahan Mamikonean, 286, 2g3, 2g4

Index Vahan Mamikonean, marzpan, 4, 50 Vahe, j 24 Vahrich, 319 Vahuni family, 123, 142, 148, 152 Valarsh, king of Armenia, 210, 211, 213, 366 Valarsh, king of Parthia, 210, 216, 222 Valarsh, Sasanian shah, 50 Valarshak, king of Parthia, 366 Valarshak I, of Armenia, 14, 30, 54, 82, 84,91,92, 124, 129, 132-145, 166, 200, 215, 225, 366 Valarshak II, of Armenia, 303, 306 Valarshapat, 29, 51, 211, 246, 262, 283, 293, 345, 348, 349 (Map B6). See also Nor K'alak.', Vardges Valarshavan, 210 (Map C4) Valegesos, 208 Valens, 23, 37, 47, 273, 285, 286, 290 Valentinian, 23, 24, 273, 275, 285 Valentinus, 212 Valerian, 220, 223 Valinak, prince of Siunik', 310 Valinak, sparapet, 272, 280 Van (Tosp), 28, 29, 293; Lake Van, 59> 87, 99 (Map C5) Vanand, 136, 308, 342 (Map B5) Vanandats'i family, 306, 307, 326 Varaz, 208 Varazdat, 25, 47, 301-303 Varazh, 92, 147. See also Varzh Varazhnuni family, 92, 147 Varbakes, 34, 108-110 Vardan, historian, 6 Vardan Mamikonean, father of Samuel, 312 Vardan Mamikonean, grandson of Sahak, 4, 327-ЗЗ1» 34°> 344> З48 Vardan Mamikonean, squire of Arshak, 277-281 Vardges, 11, 154, 210, 211. See also Valarshapat Varzh, 137. See also Varazh Vasak Mamikonean, 280, 281, 298 Vasak, of Siunik', 322 Vashtak, 106 Vaspurakan, 53, 59, 205 (Map C5-6) Vatnean, Plain, 256 (Map C7) Vaykun, 28, 153 Vaykunik', 153 (Map B6-7) Vayots' dzor, 34g (Map C6)

Vazaria, 208 Vchenik', 209 Veh-Mihr-Shapuh, 341 Vehsachan, 21g Vendidius, 28. See also Bendidius Veriosp'or, 176 Vespasian, 181, 201 Victor, 245 Vincent, 245 Vlendur Bulgar Vund, 135 Vnasep Surhap, 211 Vtam I, Krman, 318 Vramll, 51, 326, 330, 34«-344- 346 Vramshapuh, 48, 314-318, 321, 323, 331 Vranjunik', 120 (near Nakhchavan on Araxes) Vroyr, ig6 Vrt'anes, 43, 24g, 255-258, 260, 263, 264, 273, 313 Vstamkar, 106 Vzurk Khak'an, 241

Web of Chries, 14, 103

Xerxes, 105, 151 Xeuxippus, 244 Xisuthra, 33, 71,77, 7g Yapetost'e, 78, 83, 84 Yapheth, 74, 75, 78, 81, 84, g2. See also Japheth Yared, 72 Yayir, 105 ♦Yazkert I, 18, 321, 323, 326 Yazkert II, 347 Yusak, 107 Yusik, 46, 264, 267, 26g, 273, 313

Zachariah, 253, 353 Zamesea, 104, 108 Zarasp, 93, 365 Zardmanos, ig5 Zareh, father of Armog, 123 Zareh, son of Artashes II, 43, 196, 198 Zarehavani family, 123, 142, 143 Zarishat, in Aliovit, 279 (Map C5) Zarishat, in Vanand, 342 (Map B5) Zarmayr, 107, 124 Zaruand, 80 (Map C6) 403

Index Zaruhi, 118 Zavan, 106 Zaven, 302, 303 Zawra Gnt'uni, 161 Zawray Rshtuni, 267, 269 Zeno, 4 Zerubabel, 351

Zeus, 29, 149, 152 Zeuxis, 24 Zoroaster, 33, 101, 102 Zradasht, 78 Zrvan, 79, 80, 83, 359 Zuit'ay, 293, 294 Zwartnots', 53

i

404

Index of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions

Direct quotations and explicit allusions by Moses are marked with an as­ terisk. Note that the order and numbering of books is that of the Armenian Bible.

Genesis 1.26-27: 650.1 3-9- 72* 3 »7-։9: 72* 3-23-24: 72* 4-4: 72* 4-9: 72* 4.26: 71* 5-3: 7‘* 5-6: 71* 5.9-21: 72* 5.24: 72* 5 *5֊*9: 73* 5 29: 73* i°: 740.2, 750.4,5 10.6: 750.6, 8in.2 10.8: 810.2 10.10-11: 810.1 11: 840.6 11.10: 74* 11.1226: 74* 17.6: 130» 17.16:130* 25.1: 1300.7 25.1-6: 215* 25.2: 2150.2 25.4: 1300.7

(Genesis, cont’d) 34.12: 1930.7 35.4: 1880.3 41.8: 1890.2 41.24: 1890.2

Exodus 11.9: 18, 260* 17.8-16: 297* 22.16: 1930.7 26.14: 1920.5 34.7: 316* Deuteronomy 2.11: 79* 13.1: 1890.2 13.3: 1890.2 13.5: 1890.2 28.23: 260* 34.6: 18, 250*

Joshua 1.2: 351* 7.26: 1480.1 405

Index of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions Judges 4.21: 19, 930.4 13: 19911.2 21.24: 257

Nehemiah 7: 2080.14 7-59: 3°

1 Kings ։5-35: 279* 17.42: 1230.2 17.49: 262* 19.9: 2070.5 31.4: 294*

Esther 1.5: 1930.9 1.7: i88n.3 i-9: i93n-9 2.2: 1920.3 2.7: 1920.3 8.4: 1920.5 10.2: 1890.6

2 Kings 3.4: 1620.6 5.18: 79* 23: 232* 3 Kiogs 2.12: 256* 4.2: 162n.6 12.16-21: 351* 13-24: 351* 17.16: 288* 4 Kings 2.11: 351* 2 23-25: 2550.3 4:288* 9.16: 351* ’3-3: 351* 17.30: 14m. 17 19.37: 1 12n.2 21.3-6: 1070.1 25-7: 18, 272*’ 351*

1 Chronicles 1.4: 750.5 1-32-33: i3on-7 10.4: 294* 11.11: 232* 2 Chronicles 9.44: 1620.6 13.9: 252*

1 Ezra 5-8: 351* 406

Job 37.20: 70* 38-34: 239* 41-9-13: !23n-3 Psalms 4.36: 252* 22-2: 350* 32.10: 19, 324* 34.810: 252* 56-5: 34i 63.4: 341 73-19: 18, 339* 77-8: 252* 91.1314: 18, 250 91.15: 250 106.34: 260

Proverbs 22.29: 1940.3 24.3: 341

Isaiah 6.9: 1690.1 7-15: 114 8.14: 1760.1 28.4: 19, 302 37.38: 112* 42.2: 253 49.20: 1440.35, 2050.5 57-2i: 354* 66.20: 1350.3

Index of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions Jeremiah 13.23: 18, 243 51.2: no* 51.44: 8511.3

Ezechiel 16.19: 114 Daniel 2.2-3: 1150.2 2.31: 1150.2 2.44: 1760.1 2.46: 1160.4 3: i45n-3 7.4: 1160.3 7.6: 1160.3 11.8: 1160.5 Amos 5.8: 239*

Nahum 3.8: 3250.20

3 Maccabees 1.12: 9311. 1

Matthew 7.2: 278* 7-6: 343 17.16: 251* 18.7: 18, 346* 23-35: 253* 27-34: 251* Mark 4.24: 278* Luke 213: 249 3.1: 1670.2 6.38: 278* 9.41: 251* ii-5i: 253* 15.15: 1590.4 16.22-23: 3510.12 17-։: 346* 20.18: 1760.1 23.31: 252*

Zachariah 11.16: 353* Malachi 317: 351 1 Maccabees J-43: *9- 145n-4 6.3g: 19, 1140.6, 2970.8 8.2-3: 1310.5 83: 19 11.58: 19, i88n. 3

2 Maccabees 419: 1230.5 5.3: 19, 1140.6, 2970.8 5.21: 19, 1500.5 6: 1450.3 6.2: 3120.4 6.23: 19, 1940.1 14.8: 1150.2

John 8.12: 272* 9-5; 272* 12.20: 20 12.20-22: 169* 14.2: 252 18.6: 2550.3 19-29-3°: 251* 20.29: i6gn.i

Acts 11.28: 177^6 13.1: 2320.7 13-19: 79* 25:21: 3110.3 25.25: 3iin.3

1 Corinthians 2.7: 65ml 407

Index of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions Galatians 2.19: 24on.io

James 1.26: 353

Ephesians 6.17: 18, 249*

1 Peter 1.8: ibgn.i

Philippians 1.11: 250 3-18: 251*

Revelation 12.2: 1 i6n.3 12.3: 1 i6n.3 12.7: ii6n-7 17.4: n6n.3 17.9: n6n.3

2 Timothy 3 : 353n-25 Hebrews 4.12: 18, 249* 11.13: 24on.io

408

Map of Moses Khorenats'i’s Armenia

Mtskheta

40°

38°

E

A ALBANIA

Sugar к՛

Hnarakert

Plain of Mful

CHAVAKH К IrAR J IC

J

CHANIUK

LAZICA

EGERIA

PARKHAR

KOt

TAVK

khavtik*

VANAND

SPER

•(Bagaran Y e u < Eruandasnat

KnArtagerk՛

PONTUS Coloneia

------ 40°

Bayberd

SHA^GOMK՛

Khakh

DAR AN A VIK՛ Eriz

Ch' rm is

T'ordan • Plain of Vatnean

Qlakan (

aAberan

HARK՝ Artski

VASPURAKAN

Bakurakert

Mt. Sim

HER Artamet

ZARUAND HAYOTS' DZOR

Melitene Tigranakert

АКЁ ARDZN

KORCHtK

MARAND

MEDIA

Arebanus

AZERBAIJAN

ANDZEVATS' IK1

MOKK'

A^DZNIIC

------ 38°

Ma|khazan

*Alki

Hadamakert Mt. Sohund

KORDUK' TMORlK'

• Edessa

100 Ml.

100

150 Km.

The Armenia of Moses Khorenats'i